Talk:hominaticum

Latest comment: 1 year ago by Nicodene in topic Attested?

Attested? edit

@Nicodene Is this really attested? And what is the earliest date? Kwékwlos (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Kwékwlos The earliest example in Niermeyer[1] and DuCange[2] dates to 1035. This book refers to an example from Catalonia dating to 1020 and cautions that there appear to be no pre-11th-century examples. Nicodene (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2023 (UTC) Nicodene (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Then this should stay in the mainspace. Kwékwlos (talk) 23:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Nicodene Is this the first time where an attested Latin term gets moved into the Reconstruction namespace? Kwékwlos (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hi @Kwékwlos,
We do have at least one other example of a reconstruction whose descendants were later borrowed into Latin (and spelled like the reconstruction). Namely, *montānea. No doubt more will show up.
I have been using the ninth century (which saw the first 'formal' cleavage between Latin and Romance) as a line of demarcation. So if a term is attested in that century, or earlier, I see no need for a reconstruction. If a term is first attested in the 11th century or later, I consider it a clear borrowing from Romance (now clearly and consistently distinguished from Latin). I'm not sure what I would do with terms first attested in the tenth century. Nicodene (talk) 22:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
  1. ^ Niermeyer, Jan Frederik (1976) “hominaticus”, in Mediae Latinitatis Lexicon Minus, Leiden, Boston: E. J. Brill, page 491
  2. ^ hominaticum in Charles du Fresne du Cange’s Glossarium Mediæ et Infimæ Latinitatis (augmented edition with additions by D. P. Carpenterius, Adelungius and others, edited by Léopold Favre, 1883–1887)
Return to "hominaticum" page.