Talk:masculus

This page needs to be corrected. First off, it uses the Oxford Latin Dictionary which has been notoriously known for Christian Latin; this means that the entries of the Oxford Latin Dictionary are still being corrected. One of these terms is Masculus. The suffix -ulus makes this word diminutive. There is no way possible for this word to mean man or manly as it was illegal in Latin, Hebrew, and Greek cultures for a boy to be called a man. In the Greek Bible, and in the Torah, it says man should not have intercourse with male. The reason it says male is because in ancient cultures, another way to say boy was to call them male as they were not allowed to be called men. This is a lost in translation error, but by piecing together other languages, we can say for sure that this does not means man or male in the sense that we are accustomed to. Masculus, Masculo, Masculorum, etc. means boy or little boy. In a better sense, this word most likely is the equivalent to present day "minor."

11:46, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Alehti: That's just not true. Here are Forcellini's meanings and examples for masculus.

• deminutivum est a mas, sed pro eodem adhibetur, maschio, mascolino, ἀῤῥενικὸς, ἀνδρικός.
• de hominibus. - Feminae opponitur apud Plaut. Cist. 4. 2. 39.

And there's also Hor. Carm. 3, 6, 37: "ne minimum quidem indicium masculi et incorrupti viri" where "masculus" is used to describe "viri" (men). Sartma (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Do you understand the basics of Latin? Words ending in -ulus, -ula, -ulum -culus, -cula, -culum, -olus, -ola, -olum, -ellus, -ella, -ellum, -ittus, -itta, -ittum naturally take on the diminutive form.

abaculus: small cube of colored glass

acidulus: a little sour

acisulus: little adze

acutulus: a little subtle, a little pointed

adolescentulus: very youthful

adolescentulus: mere youth

adpagineculus: a little decorative

adulescentulus: very youthful

adulescentulus: mere youth

agellulus: very small plot of land

abavunculus: great-great-great-great uncle, remote ancestor (related very little)

…… this will go on for a long time so here are some slices:

belliatulus: pretty little

bellulus: a little pretty or little nice

calculus: pebble

canaliculus: small channel

capitulus: chapter (section of a book, essentially smaller book)

clientulus: mere, small, insignificant

curculiunculus: little weevil

discipulus: pupil, student (lessar than a teacher)

famulus: servant (lessar than an owner)

homunculus: little man, manikin

lentulus: a little slow

leviculus: little brains

oculus: eye (because eyes are small?)

plusculus: rathermore (small conclusion or comparitive)

populus: the people within a crowd (later, used for the headcount of nations)

querulus: lament

sacculus: little bag, little sack

singulus: one at a time, one each

surculus: sprout

titulus: title, label, placard,

tumulus: mound, a scoop of dirt

anser masculus => goose Alehti (talk) 01:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

___________

The page needs some revisions. I am in the middle of other research and I just spent too much time on this as it is. Nearly every instance of Masculus has always been paired with femineo. It's not a coincidence. Are all of you forgetting that Latin is a dead language that has been corrupted and forgotten for hundreds of years, only kept alive barely by the few? This is a restructured language, and I suggest you start to dig into words that do not make sense. New Latin has some words ending in a diminutive but that's because those words are hardly over 500 years old. We're talking about the strict language rules that these cultures followed 2000 years ago. Masculus would undoubtedly be a boy. Are you unaware that the Ancient Romans and Greeks openly practiced forms of pedophilia? Are you aware the Catholic Church didn't start to care about homosexuality until they banned their congregation from studying the bible? I want you to find me a word that belongs to Wiktionary that ends in -culus that doesn't mean "small, lesser, or youth" that also isn't a New Latin word from the past 600 years.

Category:Latin_words_suffixed_with_-culus

If you can't find one, then I suggest you rethink the definition and wonder how else those have fit their own beliefs within untranslatable texts. If you want to believe that the ONLY word to ever exist in old/middle/medieval Latin with a diminutive suffix wasn't diminutive, then by all means, be that person.

Alehti (talk) 02:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I just read the entry to your link. Malus Masculus means "Bad Boy."

They are speaking of a baby in the context, so it's not male or female. It's boy or girl.

Masculum genus // genus would mean class in this case. Boy class. Basically saying, this boy is not a man.

mascula nomina rebus // what is the boy's name? What is the boy called by?

mascula libido apud Horat. // boy's desire to be among Horace. // not yet soldiers.

The rest of these are just overwhelmingly about boys; how anyone thought it meant men cannot think for themselves. Please do additional research on this matter.

Alehti (talk) 02:29, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@Alehti Are you willingly ignoring all the examples that contradict your theory? No-one here is denying the etymology of "masculus", i.e. it being etymologically a diminutive, but it's meaning had nothing to do with a diminuitive and simply meant "male, masculine". The first line I quoted from Forcellini literally says: "It's the diminutive of mas, but it's used with the meaning of "male, masculine". And again "Feminae opponitur", it's used as the opposite of femina".

It's also clear from your translation of the examples in the dictionary that your understanding of Latin is incredibly poor to say the least. "Mascula nomina" could never mean "what is the boy's name?". Have you even read where that sentence comes from? Have a look at Martial, XI,43. They're talking about body parts!

And apud in "mascula libido apud Horat." just means "in the passage of", and it's talking about the book from Horace where you can find "mascula libido". Beside the fact that Horace is talking about a woman in that passage, it's literally impossible to interpret that string as "boy's desire to be among Horace"...!

So, as it often happens with people going around telling others to "study more" or asking question like "do you even understand the basic of blablabla", it's obvious that the one who doesn't know much about what they're talking about is you. You fully proved your Latin isn't even good enough to translate simple phrases, so I think my job here is done. Sartma (talk) 09:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@Alehti: You seem to have a fixation on making usage in the Vulgate fit a certain interpretation. The truth is that the words like masculus were in common use for several centuries before the Vulgate was written, and the fact that it's called the "Vulgate" shows that it isn't written in standard Classical Latin. Trying to rewrite the history of Latin to make it fit someone's bright idea about the Vulgate is getting it all backward. Besides which, no one uses the Vulgate as a source for Biblical translation anymore. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic, then translated into Greek, and the New Testament was written in Koine Greek- all before the Vulgate came along. We have those texts, so the Vulgate is completely irrelevant. Try proving your point based on the Hebrew or the Greek, not the Vulgate. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sartma @Chuck Entz I absolutely will not tolerate this bigotry. Here is proof. This was one of the reasons why the church exploded into many denominations. Many of the popes were Child Molesters as were the Roman Emperors. You're basing your logic on very well known flawed information that we have for decades known. If this is not fixed, I will be contacting your ISP for about 150 violations of intentional prejudice; as well as submitting all of these links to every search engine with a request for removal. I may not do much on Wiki sites; I think they're awful because of users like you who can't think for themselves and blatantly and knowingly try to stand up for bigotry.

Here you will see where some changed the german bible: https://www.wordproject.org/bibles/vg/03/18.htm#22 https://www.wordproject.org/bibles/de/03/18.htm#22 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=3+Mose+18&version=LUTH1545#22 http://www.ntslibrary.com/Bible%20-%20German%20Luther%20Translation.pdf https://ccel.org/ccel/bible/delut/delut.i.html

And here are all of the discrepancies IN EVERY MAIN CANONICAL LANGUAGE: LATIN VULGATE: https://ezno.medium.com/the-bible-wasnt-wrong-humans-were-wrong-e9279ed0bd8e HEBREW TORAH: https://jewishstandard.timesofisrael.com/redefining-leviticus-2013/ LUTHER BIBEL: https://www.forgeonline.org/blog/2019/3/8/what-about-romans-124-27 (although he is wrong, they didn't start in the 1900s, they started in the 1500s GREEK SEPTUAGINT: https://www.rwuc.org/2020/03/20/arsenokoitai/

There is ZERO way for masculus to mean man, manly, or masculine. That's absurd. You really ought to break out your thinking caps. I learned Latin from German, and Italian, and along with my English. German structure is very identical to Latin, Italian is nearly verbatim, and English shares many roots with Latin. Another thing that you got wrong was decimas; just because the Bible mistranslated it, doesn't mean it's correct. They were thinking of decemas. Decimas is to decimate. It shares the same root in nearly all romantic languages and English. The root you are looking for is dece, not deci. Here is a list so you don't get confused. And the list below that needs to be corrected to all say boys, not man, men, mankind, manly, or masculine. Those are all horribly wrong.

Not only that, the Amiatinus has not the verses where they added in the word "Homosexuality." I transcribed that book and many things have changed. Have you noticed that Google's translations have gotten a lot better? That was the result of over a 1000 hours (and that's with using AI and comparing against millions of sites) of reconstructing Latin from the 6 derived languages. I use Google cloud, and after I trained my set of 500,000 phrases. I wasn't aware of one of Google's deeply hidden cloud policies which was that every thing that you translate for personal use on Google can me used by Google forever. I then translated 700,000 words via the Amiatinus. Google started to change within a couple of days. They even started translating the Bible correctly. When you typed in the leviticus translation, it said "boy." But of course, about 45 minutes later, it had turned back into man, and the translations got muddy again most likely because of a horrible human bigot. Shame.

@PierreAbbat can you please make sure that someone fixes these definitions? I've wasted too much time on this site dealing with those who can't think for themselves.

--Alehti (talk) 22:58, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Indicative Present ego deceō tū decēs is decet nōs decḗmus (the likely culprit) vōs decḗtis iī decent

Imperfect ego decḗbam tū decḗbās is decḗbat nōs decēbā́mus vōs decēbā́tis iī decḗbant

I Future ego decḗbō tū decḗbis is decḗbit nōs decḗbimus vōs decḗbitis iī decḗbunt

Perfect ego decuī tū decuístī is decúit nōs decúimus vōs decuístis iī decuḗrunt

Pluperfect ego decúeram tū decúerās is decúerat nōs decuerā́mus vōs decuerā́tis iī decúerant

II Future ego decúerō tū decúeris is decúerit nōs decuérimus vōs decuéritis iī decúerint

Subjunctive Present

ego deceam tū deceās is deceat nōs deceā́mus vōs deceā́tis iī deceant

Imperfect ego decḗrem tū decḗrēs is decḗret nōs decērḗmus vōs decērḗtis iī decḗrent

Perfect ego decúerim tū decúeris is decúerit nōs decuérimus vōs decuéritis iī decúerint

Pluperfect ego decuíssem tū decuíssēs is decuísset nōs decuissḗmus vōs decuissḗtis iī decuíssent

I Imperative tū decē vōs decḗte

II Imperative tū decḗtō is decḗtō vōs decētṓte iī decéntō

Passive Indicative Present ego deceor tū decḗris is decḗtur nōs decḗmur vōs decḗminī iī decéntur

Imperfect ego decḗbar tū decēbā́ris is decēbā́tur nōs decēbā́mur vōs decēbā́minī iī decēbántur

I Future ego decḗbor tū decḗberis is decḗbitur nōs decḗbimur vōs decēbíminī iī decēbúntur

Perfect ego décitus sum tū décitus es is décitus est nōs décitī sumus vōs décitī estis iī décitī sunt

Pluperfect ego décitus eram tū décitus erās is décitus erat nōs décitī erāmus vōs décitī erātis iī décitī erant

II Future ego décitus erō tū décitus eris is décitus erit nōs décitī erimus vōs décitī eritis iī décitī erunt

Subjunctive Present ego decear tū deceā́ris is deceā́tur nōs deceā́mur vōs deceā́minī iī deceā́ntur

Imperfect ego decḗrer tū decērḗris is decērḗtur nōs decērḗmur vōs decērḗminī iī decērḗntur

Perfect ego décitus sim tū décitus sīs is décitus sit nōs décitī sīmus vōs décitī sītis iī décitī sint

Pluperfect ego décitus essem tū décitus essēs is décitus esset nōs décitī essēmus vōs décitī essētis iī décitī essent

___________________________________________

Active Nominal Forms Infinitive: masculā́re Present participle: masculāns; masculántis Future participle: masculātúrus Gerund: masculándum Gerundive: masculándus Passive Nominal Forms Infinitive: masculā́re Perfect participle: masculā́tum

Active Indicative Present ego masculō tū masculās is masculat nōs masculā́mus vōs masculā́tis iī masculant

Imperfect ego masculā́bam tū masculā́bās is masculā́bat nōs masculābā́mus vōs masculābā́tis iī masculā́bant

I Future ego masculā́bō tū masculā́bis is masculā́bit nōs masculā́bimus vōs masculā́bitis iī masculā́bunt

Perfect ego masculā́vī tū masculāvístī is masculā́vit nōs masculā́vimus vōs masculāvístis iī masculāvḗrunt

Pluperfect ego masculā́veram tū masculā́verās is masculā́verat nōs masculāverā́mus vōs masculāverā́tis iī masculā́verant

II Future ego masculā́verō tū masculā́veris is masculā́verit nōs masculāvérimus vōs masculāvéritis iī masculā́verint

Subjunctive Present ego masculem tū masculēs is masculet nōs masculḗmus vōs masculḗtis iī masculent

Imperfect ego masculā́rem tū masculā́rēs is masculā́ret nōs masculārḗmus vōs masculārḗtis iī masculā́rent

Perfect ego masculā́verim tū masculā́veris is masculā́verit nōs masculāvérimus vōs masculāvéritis iī masculā́verint

Pluperfect ego masculāvíssem tū masculāvíssēs is masculāvísset nōs masculāvissḗmus vōs masculāvissḗtis iī masculāvíssent

I Imperative tū masculā vōs masculā́te

II Imperative tū masculā́tō is masculā́tō vōs masculātṓte iī masculántō

Passive Indicative Present ego masculor tū masculā́ris is masculā́tur nōs masculā́mur vōs masculā́minī iī masculántur

Imperfect ego masculā́bar tū masculābā́ris is masculābā́tur nōs masculābā́mur vōs masculābā́minī iī masculābántur

I Future ego masculā́bor tū masculā́beris is masculā́bitur nōs masculā́bimur vōs masculābíminī iī masculābúntur

Perfect ego masculā́tus sum tū masculā́tus es is masculā́tus est nōs masculā́tī sumus vōs masculā́tī estis iī masculā́tī sunt

Pluperfect ego masculā́tus eram tū masculā́tus erās is masculā́tus erat nōs masculā́tī erāmus vōs masculā́tī erātis iī masculā́tī erant

II Future ego masculā́tus erō tū masculā́tus eris is masculā́tus erit nōs masculā́tī erimus vōs masculā́tī eritis iī masculā́tī erunt

Subjunctive Present ego masculer tū masculḗris is masculḗtur nōs masculḗmur vōs masculḗminī iī masculḗntur

Imperfect ego masculā́rer tū masculārḗris is masculārḗtur nōs masculārḗmur vōs masculārḗminī iī masculārḗntur

Perfect ego masculā́tus sim tū masculā́tus sīs is masculā́tus sit nōs masculā́tī sīmus vōs masculā́tī sītis iī masculā́tī sint

Pluperfect ego masculā́tus essem tū masculā́tus essēs is masculā́tus esset nōs masculā́tī essēmus vōs masculā́tī essētis iī masculā́tī essent

--Alehti (talk) 22:58, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, I've blocked this editor -- nobody who writes this sort of drivel will ever provide anything of value to this project. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 23:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC)