Talk:plusquamperfectum

Latin

The Latin should need clarification:
The label "etymological" would need an explanation, and the usage note

The term tempus praeteritum plūsquamperfectum should always be used; "plūsquamperfectum" by itself is simply the word from which the term's descendants originated.

seems to state that there is no "plūsquamperfectum" meaning "the pluperfect", which would mean this doesn't deserve an entry, but instead foreign terms (like English pluperfect) should be descendants of the adjective plūsquamperfectus.
[ However, in context - as by ellipsis with the noun tempus being understood from context - and in New Latin a noun substantive plusquamperfectum could exist as well, making the usage note somewhat wrong... ] -18:01, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so it seems that the usage note is somewhat wrong; I've looked through multiple sources online, and it seems that "plūsquamperfectum" can operate by itself as a noun substantive to refer to the tense. This should mean, however, that the Etymology 2 section can remain, doesn't it? Unlike the entries pertaining to the other tenses, this one seems to me to be more of "its own word" compared to the other tenses. I think we could remove the plural, though, as I don't see how that is possible (unless in Latin the plural can refer to multiple *instances* of the "plūsquamperfectum"?) Perhaps this all means that the "etymological" label isn't needed. 2601:203:104:1830:5D38:3187:AD19:FFA 05:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)