Reconstruction talk:Latin/padule

I find this page very instructive. I do not understand why someone would delete it. The attested forms in the Romance languages draw back to this hypothetical form. Waelsch (talk) 07:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

RFD discussion: January 2018–April 2019
I think I agree with Rua that we shouldn't have reconstruction pages for mere alternative forms (in a broad sense) of attested terms: see this thread. We could just as well put the metathesised descendants in a subsubsection at.

It'd be better to use the reconstruction namespace solely for truly unattested terms, such as.

, what do you think? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 14:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * No opinion. What would the descendants of *padule link to? — Ungoliant (falai) 14:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * : "From 🇨🇬, metathesised form of the classical 🇨🇬, "? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 14:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, never mind. Keep. Alternative forms that do not represent regular changes (like *circlus does) are worth having. People interested in Vulgar Latin benefit from these words being in Category:Vulgar Latin, even if their descendants are listed in the main entry. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete —Rua (mew) 15:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete – we can add the word metathesis in the Latin page, similarly to the additions in . Palaestrator verborum sis loquier 🗣 15:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm more or less indifferent to it; leaning toward keep. But as long as the information from the reconstruction entry is still preserved and presented effectively in some way, it's okay. Word dewd544 (talk) 19:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. My initial reaction was to lean keep, but as long as the information is retained (meaning, I think we should spell out that some things derive "from a metathesized form *padule", and not just say "from metathesis" and leave people to guess how exactly the consonants of palus switched position so hard that one of them became a d — yes, I know how), I see the benefit to not segregating the descendants onto two separate pages, and hence the benefit to deleting this entry. I could foresee either following each descendant with a qualifier like or, especially if there are many such descendants, splitting the descendants like
 * from palus, palude(m)
 * * Friulian: palût, palûd
 * from a metathesized form *padule
 * * Emilian: padóll
 * We could in the same way put descendants of *linguaticum on lingua and say "from a compound form *linguaticum", though, i.e. the line between *palude and *linguaticum seems indistinct... - -sche (discuss) 17:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * About I agree with you; I'd already done that in another entry (can't remember which), and I've done it again at . I think  is a different case though: there's suffixation involved, so the existence of that page is truly warranted, in my view.
 * But really, I wish we had a thorough discussion about how "Descendants" sections should look like. We have two templates already ( and ), there's the problem of etymological twins, of borrowings vs. inheritances, of descendant vs. non-descendant languages... If you wish, you can join the feast at Beer_parlour/2017/October! --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 15:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Deleted —Rua (mew) 16:47, 30 April 2019 (UTC)