Talk:tlatus

RFV discussion: March 2015

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

---

tlatus

Old Latin which appears to be unattested. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, this form is mentioned in Wheelock's Latin, but I don't know whether they give it as an unattested reconstruction or just rare and archaic, and I don't have the book handy to check. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 18:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Lewis & Short, the Oxford Latin Dictionary and Sihler's New Comparative Grammar all treat the forms starting with tlat- as unattested reconstructions. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

@Angr But stlatus is attested in epigraphy, right? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know; I only looked up the past participle of fero, not the word for "wide". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Perseus' copy of Lewis and Short has "sterno, strāvi, strātum, 3 […] cf.: strages, struo, torus, and lātus, adj., old Lat. stlatus, to spread out, spread abroad; to stretch out, extend". Wallace Martin Lindsay's Short Historical Latin Grammar marks tlatus with an asterisk as a reconstruction, but does not so mark stlatus; it says the derived term stlattarius was used by Juvenal. - -sche (discuss) 21:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Then it's probably fine. I wanted to check because it was also created by this user who flooded us with unattested entries that I speedied en masse. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

We now treat Old Latin as its own language, owing to the significant differences between classical and pre-classical Latin. Is this attested in Latin or Old Latin? —CodeCat 03:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)