Talk:Olisipo

@Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV: If you have a desire to flesh out the etymology (or any part of this entry) further, be my guest. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I don’t know much about the etymology, but I’ll add a descendants section. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 21:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I thought you were a peruser of Portuguese etymological dictionaries, hence the ping. But thanks for the descendants. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I am, but etymology of toponyms and etymology of regular words are very separate fields, at least in Portuguese philology. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 00:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

RFV discussion: April–May 2017

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

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.

---

Olisipo

RFV for the gender as Olisipo has "Olisīpō m" and Lisbon has "Olisīpō f". -84.161.41.33 10:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Both Lewis & Short and Gaffiot say masculine. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

But that doesn't properly attest the gender and could be a guess. If it's based on an alt form such as Olisippo or Ulisippo, then it's a justified guessed. However, looking at the references none of the forms should attest a gender. The forms in Graesse which includes NL and likely ML forms should more often imply feminine gender: with ending in -a or -e it should be a first declension feminine; -polis is feminine; pons is masculine.

• Plinius: "oppida a Tago memorabilia in ora Olisipo, equarum e favonio vento conceptu nobile, Salacia cognominata Urbs Imperatoria, Merobrica.", "Constat in Lusitania circa Olisiponem oppidum et Tagum amnem equas favonio flante obversas animalem concipere spiritum, idque partum fieri et gigni pernicissimum ita, sed triennium vitae non excedere."
• Varro: "In fetura res incredibilis est in Hispania, sed est vera, quod in Lusitania ad oceanum in ea regione, ubi est oppidum Olisipo, monte Tagro quaedam e vento concipiunt certo tempore equae, ut his gallinae quoque solent, quarum ova hypenemia appellant."
• Mela: "Sinus intersunt: et est in proximo Salacia, in altero Ulisippo et Tagi ostium, amnis gemmas aurumque generantis."
• Graesse: "Lissabona, Lisbona, Ulyssipolis, Ulyxbona, Ulyssia, Ulyssi pons, Olisipone, Olisiponna, Ulisipo, Lissabon, St., Portugal."

-84.161.25.79 16:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

So you think they're all wrong for no reason? And your quotations do not support feminine gender at all, it seems. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Technically I don't have to argue why they could be wrong. One has to attest the masculine (or feminine) gender. If one can't, then can't state that it is masculine (or feminine) - although one could add a note stating that some dictionaries state it's masculine. Anyway, I'm going to argue:

• Sometimes dictionaries do assume genders or forms. If there is no attested gender, I can't see any reason why one should assume masculine and not feminine gender. That doesn't mean there is no reason, but it could be that there is none or no good one. On the other hand, I can see reasons to assume no gender or to assume feminine gender:
  For assuming no gender: 1. An assumption isn't an attestation. 2. Maybe one could assume both genders - although one might be less likely or be assumed with less good arguments.
  For assuming feminine gender: 1. Based on dictionaries it's for example "Aeso, ōnis, f.", "Arausio, ōnis, f.", "Barcino, ōnis, f.", "Carmo, ōnis, f.", "Avennio, ōnis, f.", "Ancōn, ōnis, f.", "Crānōn (Crannōn), ōnis, ..., f.", "Carthāgo (Karthāgo), inis, f.", "Assos, ī, f.", while it's also "Frusino, ōnis, m.", "Caulōn, ōnis, m.", "Engyon, ī, n.". So feminine gender seems to be more common for terms in -ō, -ōnis (or -ōn, -ōnis) and so should be more likely for Olisīpō - though the gender of the other terms could be doubtful too and could require a RFV too. 2. The terms mentioned by Graesse should more commonly be feminine. And that could be because feminine gender is more common for city names in general or because Olisīpō was feminine too.
  For assuming masculine gender: 1. Ulixēs was male - but Hērāclēa and Hērāclēum aren't masculine although Herculēs or Ἡρακλῆς/Ἡρακλέης was male. Hērāclēa and Hērāclēum come from Greek, but there are also Latin examples to get the same counter-example as Augusta from Augustus.
• In some dictionaries the word is mentioned with feminine gender, e.g. in an appendix in F. K. Kraft's and M. A. Forbiger's dictionary (from 1826) it is: "Lissabon, (Lisboa), Olissipo (Ulisippo, Olisipo), onis, f. Plin. Lisbona." Furthermore the OLD (1968, p. 1246) has: "Olisīpō (-ippō) ~ōnis, f. Also Vlis-.". So in dictionaries one can find both genders, which could mean that none is attested.

I haven't claimed that the quotations do attest a feminine gender. So maybe for clarifications: The first three quotes I added where the references for Olisīpō and it's alternative forms mentioned by dictionaries like Lewis & Short (L&S). The fourth quote, Graesse, is out of a book (I'd guess a quite famous book) containing Latin place names (maybe cp. w:Johann Georg Theodor Grässe and w:Orbis Latinus). And maybe for further clarification: The sources for the quotes are online texts, not e-books of printed books (like at books.google), as I have no doubt that the text in printed editions is similar to the given quotes.

-84.161.25.79 17:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

This has already been detagged; I'm archiving it, as we have references for the listed gender. - -sche (discuss) 03:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

RFV discussion: April–May 2017

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

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.

---

Olisipo

It was tagged before as wiktionary had it as m. in Olisipo and as f. in Lisabon.
The RFV tag has been removed in contrary to the normal RFV procedure as mentioned at the top of WT:RFV with the comment "it's masculine", but no cite was given to support it. The person who removed the tag gave this comment in the old discussion:

"Both Lewis & Short and Gaffiot say masculine. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)"

He did not provide any cite which proves the gender. As dictionaries sometimes are wrong or contain unattested information, they don't attest anything. Furthermore, as pointed out in the old discussion, there are dictionaries which have Olisipo as a feminine:

"In some dictionaries the word is mentioned with feminine gender, e.g. in an appendix in F. K. Kraft's and M. A. Forbiger's dictionary (from 1826) it is: "Lissabon, (Lisboa), Olissipo (Ulisippo, Olisipo), onis, f. Plin. Lisbona." Furthermore the OLD (1968, p. 1246) has: "Olisīpō (-ippō) ~ōnis, f. Also Vlis-.". So in dictionaries one can find both genders, which could mean that none is attested."

Again: "So in dictionaries one can find both genders, which could mean that none is attested."
PS:

• Links for the old discussion: Talk:Olisipo#RFV discussion: April–May 2017 and Special:PermanentLink/42770951#Olisipo.
• Regarding the arching comment "This has already been detagged; I'm archiving it, as we have references for the listed gender":
  It was detagged in contrary to RFV's procedure and without being cited properly. (Well, if one just looks into wiktionary and into Gaffiot and L&S then wiktionary's m. seems to be correct, while its f. seems to be an error. But it's not so easy.)
  One can find incorrect or unattested information in dictionaries, and sometimes different dictionaries (like Gaffiot, L&S, L without S) also do have contradicting information. If that would attest anything, one could add much nonsense, or unattested stuff.
  As for now, the gender is not properly attested, and for me it seems that one can't attest it properly, at least with classical sources.
  But if dictionaries can be used to attest anything for (classical) Latin then one can attest both genders. Though, by which rule or exception of a rule are dictionary information sufficient for Latin entries?
  WT:CFI has "For terms in extinct languages" - does Latin, even though it is still used, count as extinct? Later it's "For all other spoken languages that are living" - is Latin still spoken? Written it is, but that's not spoken. Maybe it's spoken by the Pope and other church people, so that it counts as spoken. And then maybe it is the "only one [..] mention is adequate" for spoken languages which could be used to justify using dictionaries. But there is the condition: "the community of editors for that language should maintain a list of materials deemed appropriate as the only sources for entries based on a single mention". By Wiktionary:About Latin#Attestation, L&S, Gaffiot and OLD aren't deemed appropriate.
  So the proper way to resolve this RFV likely is this: Wait one month as likely there comes no attestion for the gender, at least not in classical Latin. Then add a usage note mentioning what's stated in the dictionaries (m. in L&S and Gaffiot, f. in OLD) and remove the RFV and the gender from the headword line. Of course, a better way would be to properly attest the gender, but that could be impossible.

-84.161.7.226 22:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC), PS from 23:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Concerning this comment, L&S does not mark the length of final vowels ever. They are not claiming it is short. —JohnC5 05:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if they never mark it, but I'd too guess it's just unmarked (that's why it was "short or unmarked o at the end" with "unmarked" in it).
BTW: I already added a usage note as suggested above. If the gender get's attested, it could be removed too. If it doesn't get attested, an additional "The gender is unattested." could be added. -84.161.49.251 12:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)