The heading levels on this article are not clear. Synonyms, Antonyms, Translations should be at a further level of depth beneath the part of speech so we can see wich they related to. If they related to two, they should go under both, even if it seems like duplication because that makes it clear. — Hippietrail 08:41, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'm searching for anywhere on the web I might find an explanation for the fact that priori is Dative, and should be Ablative as an object of a/ab. My favorite etymology site even says (wrongly) "from priori, ablative of prior"
So far no luck — ProudPrimate 13:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- In the Post-classical period, the ablative in -i becomes more and more prominent (Pliny writes "a priori parte" in his Naturalis Historia). This looks like a Classical dative, but in this case it is ablative. Your favorite etymology site is correct when it says "from priori, ablative of prior". —Stephen (Talk) 06:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Many thanks! Greatly relieved to read this. How did you happen to stumble on my question? — ProudPrimate 01:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry if it is all clear for others here, but do we enfold such kind of words, parts of which arent related to their etymology and sometimes even to language. As you can see, this word falls into the latter category.--Dixtosa 19:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think that you are asking about why these two non-English words are linked as though they were English. I agree with you, it is incorrect. Although a priori is used in English, the individual words are Latin, not English. They should be link to a Latin page, or not linked at all. —Stephen (Talk) 01:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)