Reconstruction talk:Latin/badaculo

RFM discussion: June–July 2021
I had created with the intention to delete the reconstructed form, because it's been attested. I've been explained that this was the wrong thing to do: the old entry should instead be moved. I wanted to move it as soon as the new entry is deleted, but has kindly asked that I create an RFM for this, so I oblige. They didn't explain why there was a need for an RFM when the name is soldily attested and referenced - presumably they want to do it here?—To repeat, the contents of need to be put into, the former deleted and the latter renamed to bataclo. Brutal Russian (talk) 23:49, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No need for the hostility and maybe try and have some humility for.
 * The word is *not* solidly attested. The is a gloss for  from a 1889 dictionary and not an actual period attested quote. If you have a look at Archiv für lateinische lexikographie und grammatik mit einschluss des älteren mittellateins (1896), you'll see that they actually mark the word as a reconstruction, "*Bataclare". Early lexicographers where not yet consistent at marking reconstructions. --  00:20, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see my mistakes as requiring a display of humility - my account was bugged and had no Move button, and I wasn't aware of the licesing issues involved in deleting pages. I'm happy to correct them. I'm not being hostile - but I would appreciate if you inserted a few terms of politeness in your replies every now and again, otherwise your style stands out to me as being overly categorical. I'm not sure you understand what TLL is. It's not a 1889 dictionary: "The Thesaurus linguae Latinae is the most authoritative dictionary of ancient Latin. It is the only lexicon to cover all surviving Latin texts from the earliest times down to AD 600." It's first fascicle was released in 1900, but it continues to operate and release new volumes and continues to set the standard for a scholarly dictionary well over a century after its conception. Every single quotation it adduces is a genuine attestation in genuine Latin documents that they have archived copies of on hand in their vast archive. Moreover, for those entries that aren't followed by an asterisk*, they adduce every single attestation known and available to them. This means that the word in question has at least 3 independent attestations in Latin before the year 600. Two of these can be seen in the CGL. Presumably the author of your 1896 article (which I don't feel necessary to look up) had no access to these documents, or to the already-available CGL, and that is why they asterisked it. In addition it predates the release of the volume in question (1905). I urge you to at least briefly familiarise yourself with that which you're about to dismiss as unreliable, and I again assure you that TLL is the standard of reliability not just in the field, but in lexicography as a whole. Brutal Russian (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * LMFAO, oh man, you're too much. Again I'll point out, the TLL only cites as a gloss for  and . In fact, if you go to Corpus glossariorum latinorum, which is what is cited as the source,  is marked as a reconstruction. If you think it is indeed attested, could you provide a contemporary quote of the term? --  01:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * : That covers p. 492.but what about p. 562, line 21? Chuck Entz (talk) 02:30, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I put in some legwork and found the original source of which is the Medieval Latin Glossae Affatim, which does indeed make it attested from that period, albeit in only one source as a gloss word. That being the case, I have no issue with  being moved to . --  02:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that you have no issue with it, but I'm still confused about the first reply. A gloss is still an full-fledged attestation, and that's why TLL cites it - that publication simply doesn't cite reconstructions. Everything that is given by TLL are genuine, archived attestations. The asterisk in the CGL doesn't mean "reconstruction" either because it's a critical edition of the manuscript, not a linguistic treatise; if you leaf one page back to the start of the section, it explains that what is marked by an asterisk has been added by a second hand. Likewise, asterisks in TLL mean that not every extant attestation has been adduced. Brutal Russian (talk) 00:55, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The TLL isn't some holy book; you can't trust it without question. You claimed every entry has "at least 3 independent attestations" but if you look at the leg-work I put in above, it's actually only validly cited in a single source as a gloss, not even an entry, which is super suspect in-and-of-itself. The other citation was absolutely a reconstruction -- see the link above -- so your statement "that publication simply doesn't cite reconstructions" is demonstratively false. Glosses are absolutely not the same as attested usages because many Medieval dictionaries created back-formation Latin terms, usually based on Italian, i.e. reconstructions. Please be more mindful of your sourcing in the future. --  01:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to continue to disagree but I don't understand you. I'm not familiar with a more reliable dictionary than the TLL, so I don't see a reason not to trust it without question. They have archived copies of all their attestations, as far as I'm aware. If by the link above you mean this, than I have only to repeat that it's not a dictionary - there are no entries! It's a critical edition of the manuscript, and everything that's in it is in the manuscript! Look below the section name - it says "Glossas quas stellula notaui manus 2 adiecit" which means "The glosses that I've marked with an asterisk have been added by a second hand". They are still in the same manuscript! The fact that it's in the TLL means the date of the glossary is pre-600, which is considered Late Latin, before the separation into Romance and the artificial Medieval Latin. Whatever it gives cannot be considered a backformation, but the etymon of the Romance words. Italian as a language didn't take shape until 4 centuries later. Brutal Russian (talk) 01:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I truly couldn't've been any more clear, so I'm just going to leave my response at that. -- 03:13, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Moved., there are still incoming links that have to be fixed. Just drop a on the redirect once those have been sorted out. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 22:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Attestation
When was the "Corpus Glossariorum Latinorum" first written? Kwékwlos (talk) 13:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)