Talk:glupsi
Latest comment: 10 months ago by Urszag in topic RFV discussion: June–September 2023
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
Latin. This perfect stem seems to be a hypothetical dictionary "ghost form", not attested; our general practice in Latin seems to be to omit unattested stems for third-conjugation verbs like this. (The RFV is for all of the verb forms built on the perfect stem; I'd consider an attestation of any to count for keeping all.) Urszag (talk) 15:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- Attested in New Latin [1] (and seems to be already handled by the usage note you added otherwise) —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 08:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you! I've adjusted the usage note to acknowledge this. Since we don't treat New Latin as a separate language, this seems to warrant documentation; however, I'm unsure whether a form that is attested in this way (it seems to only barely be a 'use' rather than a 'mention', given that it's an indirect quote) ought to be included in a conjugation table. Given that the word is rare, there isn't a strong case for arguing that its perfect was especially avoided by ancient authors, rather than just being accidentally unattested. The formation of the stem is not completely certain, but glūps- certainly seems most likely based on analogy with scrībō and nūbō, which seem to be the most formally similar verbs with attested perfect stems. I think the note should be there either way, but what do you think about the table?--Urszag (talk) 09:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Urszag: I think this is a general problem with inflection tables that contain classically unattested forms and there isn't really a satisfactory solution atm that doesn't involve manually entering the inflections with a footnote symbol or the like. To my mind a usage note is probably enough, and that's all I've done for similar cases. One justification is that from an end user perspective, not including these inflections in the table doesn't serve much practical purpose: the only obvious reasons people would be looking for the specific inflection are if they're composing in Latin, in which case the usage note warning is enough, or if they've found the form somewhere, in which case the exclusion is unhelpful. I also don't think we should "discriminate" against New Latin, if that makes any sense, if only because the vast majority of Latin literature is from after its extinction as a living language. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 13:01, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you, I think that makes sense. I'll mark this now as RFV passed.--Urszag (talk) 06:39, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Urszag: I think this is a general problem with inflection tables that contain classically unattested forms and there isn't really a satisfactory solution atm that doesn't involve manually entering the inflections with a footnote symbol or the like. To my mind a usage note is probably enough, and that's all I've done for similar cases. One justification is that from an end user perspective, not including these inflections in the table doesn't serve much practical purpose: the only obvious reasons people would be looking for the specific inflection are if they're composing in Latin, in which case the usage note warning is enough, or if they've found the form somewhere, in which case the exclusion is unhelpful. I also don't think we should "discriminate" against New Latin, if that makes any sense, if only because the vast majority of Latin literature is from after its extinction as a living language. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 13:01, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you! I've adjusted the usage note to acknowledge this. Since we don't treat New Latin as a separate language, this seems to warrant documentation; however, I'm unsure whether a form that is attested in this way (it seems to only barely be a 'use' rather than a 'mention', given that it's an indirect quote) ought to be included in a conjugation table. Given that the word is rare, there isn't a strong case for arguing that its perfect was especially avoided by ancient authors, rather than just being accidentally unattested. The formation of the stem is not completely certain, but glūps- certainly seems most likely based on analogy with scrībō and nūbō, which seem to be the most formally similar verbs with attested perfect stems. I think the note should be there either way, but what do you think about the table?--Urszag (talk) 09:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC)