Reconstruction talk:Latin/retina

RFD discussion: May 2021
Contra the provided Grandgent (1907) reference, which states, "A few that must have existed are not attested at all: *refusare, Substrate V, 234; *retĭna = ‘rein’, Substrate V, 237", the term is actually attested in a 10th-century example given by the Du Cange dictionary (which I assume it did not occur Grandgent to consult in this case). I suggest deleting the Reconstruction:Latin/retina entry, using the actual Early Medieval Latin entry  instead as the etymology for all the relevant Romance language entries (e.g. Spanish rienda, French rêne). While it is true the attestation is fairly late, from the 10th century, such a late attestation doesn't mean the word didn't have an earlier existence.--Ser be être 是 talk/stalk 00:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Separate question: the etymology we give at "retina", "An abbreviation of the Classical retināculum n", looks suspicious to me: do any other words ending in -culum/-cula have "abbreviated" forms that are inflected like non-abbreviated first declension words? I'm not sure, but could it instead be an alternative formation directly from the the verb retineo?--Urszag (talk) 02:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, very much. In fact, both the Trésor de la langue française informatisé and the Coromines & Pascual dictionary explain rêne/rienda as a deverbal derivation of retineō, not some kind of "abbreviation" of retinācula. I'll change the entry accordingly. I imagine User:I'm so meta even this acronym, who added the etymology, was thinking of "back-formation" from the apparent -cula diminutive.
 * (That said, I find the explanation vaguely, mildly attractive, considering  is attested in classical written Latin with a similar meaning, even though I can't think another example of back-formation applied on a diminutive...)--Ser be être 是 talk/stalk 05:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I just looked at the etymology of English "retina", and it looks quite wrong, considering "tunica retina" does appear attested in medieval Latin. The Corpus Corporum website gives examples from Gullielmus the abbot's De natura corporis et animae (11th century) and Roger Bacon. I don't know why it's called Vulgar or why it has an asterisk... I wonder what the OED has?--Ser be être 是 talk/stalk 05:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * OED says “post-classical Latin retina (13th cent. in British and continental sources) < classical Latin rēte net (see rete n.) + -īna -ine suffix4, so called on account of its finely fibrillar texture resembling a net”. — SGconlaw (talk) 07:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That was helpful to edit the current English etymology and add the relevant Latin entries (which were completely absent until now).--Ser be être 是 talk/stalk 17:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * My thoughts: 1) if it was formed from the verb, it must have been both before the shift of accent on the root and before the connection with the verb was no longer felt, otherwise it would have followed the shift of accent; 2) this makes the backformation proposal quite appealing; 3) as a matter of principle, I don't believe it's possible to list clearly inherited Romance terms as inherited from Medieval Latin, which is a parallel language to these varieties and not their parent. Which recalls the problem of lack of definition of Medieval Latin on the website. Brutal Russian (talk) 10:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Those are pretty good points. The lack of accent shift is pretty noticeable. And I agree it depends on how we define Medieval Latin, and the model of what Romance languages come from what... I imagine you're familiar with Roger Wright and the related "communication verticale" literature that tries to model (or explores the question of) early medieval Latin and early "pre-literary" Romance as registers of a single language, and for a longer period of time at that if it's Hispano-Romance and Italo-Romance too. I tend to personally prefer that view to the other of calling post-classical words attested in early medieval Latin "Vulgar", even marking them with an asterisk while also quoting them, all because Romance is taken to be parallel varieties to early medieval Latin.
 * At any rate, you've basically convinced me about the back-formation, and made me more conscious that this complaint has more to do with the model in my head than anything else (and the model in my head is definitely not the only one; early Romance as parallel to medieval Latin is a commonly-used view). I suppose it's okay to leave the Reconstruction:Latin entry there.--Ser be être 是 talk/stalk 00:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)