Talk:antipericatametanaparbeugedamphicribrationes

RFV

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

I can see plenty of mentions. Can we have three independent actual uses please. SemperBlotto 08:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't we have some sort of special ruling for published nonce words and hapax legomena? —Angr 14:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Usage in a well-known work. Depends what translation this is, which translations of Rabelais into English are well-known, and which aren't? Problem is also it still might not be English; Rabelais stuck some Greek and Latin into his works. One version I read had the Greek in Greek script, surely we wouldn't call that English, so why would we call Latin in Latin script English? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The full passage is here, it's pseudo-Latin (or perhaps real Latin, if you prefer), so if kept as used in a well-known work, should be as Latin, not English. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It isn't labeled as English, it's labeled as Latin, and always has been. —Angr 15:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh wait, Latin as a dead language only requires one citation. So if you take that text to be Latin (and I'm not sure about it) then I'd pass with one citation. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

{{look}}

Meh, erring on the side of inclusion, I'll pass it. I've added a context tag to it much like the one I added to goniolatry. Re-open this RFV if you want to argue that the term should fail RFV, instead. - -sche (discuss) 07:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Similar text

A very similar string occurs as part of the book title of Reime dich, oder ich fresse dich (“Rhyme or I devour you”), a 1673 book by Gottfried Wilhelm Sacer devoted to criticism of bad poetry. The full title is excessively long, but contains an embedded (pseudo-)Latin title, Antipericatametanaparbeugedamphirribificationes Poeticæ. This is obviously in some way related to the book title in La vie de Gargantua et de Pantagruel, but how? Most likely, it was modelled after that title with some modifications, but it is also remotely conceivable that both have a common, older origin.  --Lambiam 22:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

RFV discussion: November 2017–February 2019

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.

---

antipericatametanaparbeugedamphicribrationes

Short story shorter: The source (for which see talk) is (Middle) French and not Latin.
Short story more complete: The author, François Rabelais, was a French French author (he was from France and wrote in French, more precisely Middle French), and the source given at talk is from Le Gargantua et le Pantagruel (livre II, chapitre VII), which is a French work (maybe see w:François Rabelais, w:Gargantua and Pantagruel for more). So "antipericatametanaparbeugedamphicribrationes" in it is either (Middle) French or just a mentioning and no usage. Both is not sufficient for attesting a Latin term even for Latin being a LDL (WT:CFI, WT:About Latin#Attestation). By the context, it should be the title of a fictious book (context: "... libraire ... livres ... desquelz s'ensuit le repertoire", in a Germanic translation by Gottlob Regis: "Die Liberey ... mit etlichen Büchern ..., von denen hie das Befundregister folget ..."). Thus the requirements of WT:CFI#Fictional universes could apply.
Additionally, the cite in entry could be incorrect - at least in later editions it is "Antipericatametanaparbeugedamphicribrationes merdicantium" (2nd word's beginning with a lower-case m). -84.161.40.68 12:14, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

It's long enough unattested and discussion has set long enough to get RFV failed. Now the language is changed and citations are properly given.
Some further editions and cites:

• 16th century, François Rabelais.
  • In: Les œuures de M. Francois Rabelais Docteur en Medicine, contenans la vie, faicts & dicts Heroiques de Gargantua, & de sonfilz Panurge: Auecla Prognostication Pantagrueline, 1553, page 248 & 253 & 255 (in chapter VII of Le second livre des faicts et dicts Heroiques du bon Pantagruel, compose par M. Francois Rabelais Docteur en Medicine. Reueu & corrigé pour la seconde edition):

    Et touua la librairie de sainct Victor fort magnificque, mesmement d'aucuns liures qu'il y trouua, desquelz sensuit le repertoire, & primo. [...] Antipericatametanaparbeugedamphicribrationes merdicantium. [...] Desquelz aucuns sont ia impriméz, & les autres l'on imprime maintenant en cestle noble ville de Tubine.

  • In: Œuvres de Rabelais collationnées pour la première fois sur les éditions originales accompagnées d'n commentaire nouveau par MM. Burgaud des Marets et Rathery. Seconde édition. Tome premier, Paris, 1870, page 342 & 349 & 352 (in Le Gargantua et le Pantagruel, livre II, chapitre VII):

    Et touva la librairie de Saint Victor fort magnifique, mesmement d'aucuns livres qu'il y trouva, desquelz s'ensuit le repertoire, et primo : [...] Antipericatametanaparbeugedamphicribrationes merdicantium. [...] Desquelz aucuns sont ja imprimés, et les autres on imprime maintenant en cestle noble ville de Tubine.

  • The Works of Francis Rabelais, M. D. In Five Books. Vol. II. Now carefully revised, and compared throughout with the late new Edition of M. Le du Chat, By Mr. Ozell. Who has likewise added at the Bottom of the Pages, a Translation of the Notes, Historical, Critical, and Explanatory, of the said M. du Chat, and Others: In which Notes, never before printed in English, the Text is not only explained, but, in Multitudes of Places, amended, and made conformable to the first and best Editions of this learned and facetious Athor, Dublin, 1738, page 7337 & 55 & 67 (2nd book, chapter VII):

    In his Abode there he went to see the Library of St. Victor, very magnificent, especially in Books which were there, of which followeth the Catalogue. Et primò. [...] (93.) Antipericatametanaparbeugedamphicribrationes Mendicantium. [...] Of which Library some Books are already printed and the rest are now at the Press, in this noble City of Tubinge.

    (93.) Antipericatametanaparbeugedamphicribrationes Mendicantium.] It is in some Editions Merdicantium, which inclines M. D. C. to think our Author designates the Physicians by the barbarous Terms of their Profession.

  • Rabelais Gargantua and Pantagruel Translated into English by Sir Thomas Urquhart and Peter le Motteux annis 1653–1694 With an Introduction by Charles Whibley. Volume I, London, 1900, page 222 & 225 & 227 (2nd book, chapter VII):

    In his abode there he found the Library of St. Victor, a very stately and magnifick one, especially in some books which were there, of which followeth the Repertory and Catalogue, Et primò, [...] Antipericatametanaparbeugedamphicribationes toordicantium. [...] Of which library some books are already printed and the rest are now at the presse, in this noble city of Tubinge.

  • Meister Franz Rabelais Gargantua und Pantagruel aus dem Französischen verdeutscht, mit Einleitung und Anmerkungen, den Variaten des zweyten Buchs von 1533, auch einem noch unbekannten Gargantua herausgegeben durch Gottlog Regis. Erster Theil, Leipzig, 1832, page 208 & 212 & 214 (2nd book, 7th chapter):

    Die Liberey zu Sanct Victor fand er sehr herrlich versehen, insonderheit mit etlichen Büchern so er da vorfand, von denen hie das Befundregister folget, et primo: [...] Antipericatametanaparbuzidiamphicribrationes mendicantium. [...] Von denen etliche bereits gedruckt sind, und die übrigen soeben unter der Preß befindlich zu Tübingen der guten Stadt.

Other older french editions are (16th ct.), (late 16th ct.), (17th ct.) and (18th ct.).

-84.161.14.28 09:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

This actually passed RFV before. The way I see it -- the word is part of a phrase that is obviously Latin, albeit inserted into a Middle French text, which should count well enough as a cite still imo: we count mentions of a Vandalic phrase in a Latin text as a proper source for a good part of Category:Vandalic lemmas, and I have no idea why we should be more nitpicky here. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 03:36, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

As for "obviously Latin": IMO it's not "obviously Latin", cp. the etymology section's "where does the '-beuged-' part come from?". It could also be some pseudo-Latin French, some non-Latin Dog Latin. And considering pseudo-borrowings like pseudo-anglicisms it could also be a Middle French pseudo-latinism.

As for "passed RFV before": It can happen that a term incorrectly passes RFV, e.g. with some cited mentionings or doubtful cites which could be usages or mentionings. Also, maybe the WT:CFI rules were different back than. Nowdays at least the Middle French usage isn't enough to attest a non-Middle-French term. But I've no problem with having it as Middle French which it now is. Middle French is a LDL, the term is attested with a Middle French usage, and Latin-like words are nothing extraordinary (Category:English terms borrowed from Latin for example has some Latin-like words with proper Latin spelling and ending, and sometimes the terms did exist in Latin).

As for Vandalic: This is different from Latin and can't really be compared as Vandalic is an ancient Trümmersprache.
(Most terms in Category:Vandalic lemmas were sourced with a single mentioning in "De conviviis barbaris", and it seems there is no "list of materials deemed appropriate" (WT:CFI#Number of citations) for Vandalic. ATM these terms might fail an RFV if there were one, but alternatively the source could simple be added to a to-be-created list (similar to WT:About Latin#Attestation). With Vandalic being an ancient Trümmersprache, there pretty much are only two options: Accept mentions including the ones in "De conviviis barbaris", or remove Vandalic from Wiktionary (at least from the main namespace). The only non-reconstructed Vandalic entry not sourced with "De conviviis barbaris" is -riks. And problems regarding that entry were already pointed out at Talk:-riks (obviously, nobody cared...). Comparing en:w:Genseric ("reconstructed Vandalic: *Gaisarīks") and Reconstruction:Vandalic/Gaisareiks and also -riks some things seem contradicting. The Latin variant is said to be -ricus, also -rix. Ferdinand Wrede (1886) has -rîx and -rix, with the former probably being reconstructed but not marked as such and the later being a German form of the reconstruction (besides the Latin-German in -ricus and the German-German in -rich). Google results hint that Gaisareiks is (reconstructed) Gothic. My guess would be that Reconstruction:Vandalic/Gaisareiks and Reconstruction:Vandalic/Hildireiks might be wrong, and that -riks might be wrong/misleading/confusing, with Geiseric being an English name. Of course, -riks could be wrong too, and could be an unmarked reconstruction missing the * and |head=-rīks. Maybe these three should be RFVed.)

-07:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

You're right on Vandalic and that has been bothering me for a while. I think the mentions from De conviviis should probably stay, even though they aren't without their problems either as you have mentioned. -riks and the reconstructions seem very objectionable to me, something I've noted before (the author has weak reasons for their inclusion in their present form); I've nommed them all for deletion.

As for the Latin/whatever word at hand -- the way words like these were embedded in medieval and early modern vernacular texts, which not uncommonly use Latin words (including newly invented ones) anyway (depending on genre), makes the case a bit complicated. I'm honestly not too sure what to do with it, but I also don't know if its current marking as a Latin entry is necessarily better or worse than as a Middle French entry. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 13:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

It seems someone went ahead and changed it to Middle French; can't say I object. Looking back, I'm not sure this was really an RFV matter in any case, but however it may be, I guess it passed. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)