Talk:-issimus

-issumus
Examples from Sallust's Historiae: locupletissumus, acerbissuma, stultissumi, corruptissumi - miserruma & -um, pulcherruma - pessumi & -is.

But as far as I saw most of this is missing in L&S and Georges - but well, they also don't mention every inflected form. Georges at least mentions miserissumus and caesissumus (caesissimus in L&S, both give Varr. LL. 8, 76 as source; in Muellerus' edition it's caesissumus, in Roland G. Kent's edition caesissimus) as well as superrumus and deterrumus.

Other references: As for -lumus/-illumus: In New Latin it exist (most likely like Schultz wrote), and in antique Latin I've once seen it in "[...] qui potes, cum sint ipsi dissimillumi inter se?" (Cicero).
 * Dr. Ferdinand Schultz, Lateinische Sprachlehre zunächst für Gymnasien bearbeitet. Sechste verbesserte Ausgabe, Paderborn, 1865, p. 76f., §.67: "Die Superlativendung issimus schrieb man in der Voraugusteischen Zeit auch vielfach issumus (ebenso errumus, illumus; vrgl. § 4. Anm. 2.), und so schreiben auch heut zu Tage viele Kritiker in den Ausgaben namentlich der Komiker, des Sallust, und auch wohl des Cicero."
 * Clyde Pharr: Vergil's Aeneid Books I-VI. With a Selective Bibliography by Alexander G. McKay, Grammatical Appendix p. 19, 2005, §.85 and 89: "85. The Superlative is formed by adding to the consonant stems the endings issimus, a, um (earlier issumus). [...] 89. [...] a. Six adjectives in ilis add limus (earlier lumus) to the stem, after dropping i, to form the superlative: facilis, easy; difficilis, hard; similis, like; dissimilis, unlike; gracilis, slender; and humilis, low." -rumus or -errumus isn't mentioned but just "rimus" in §.88.

As for a possible label: -issumus is not pre-Augustan as it's still used in New Latin (according to Schultz, which for -lumus/-illumus seems to be correct). It could be that -issumus is archaic in Classical Latin - but is it still archaic in New Latin? New Latin authors could have used -issumus for other reason than for archaicising/archaising their texts. -Slœtel (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC) As for Wiktionary talk:About Latin: That is long because it contains a long quote and a translation. As old sources sometimes contain outdated information, one could treat it like a question "Are these information still correct?", but for me it rather was just a noticing and finding of sources that Latin nominatives can end in -ā (as Phaedrā). If a Latin entry Phaedra would exist and would miss the form Phaedrā, I would have added it and could have referred to the talk page. Well, I might actually create the entry, but I would do it in a few days (or weeks) and not today or tomorrow. -Slœtel (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I apologize for this, but reading these disquisitions you've been writing about Latin topics, I often have difficulty telling what changes you are seeking. Are you asking for as an alternative form of ? If so, by all means add it. — JohnC5 19:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your post. Here I'm not asking anything. I did add -issumus as an alternative form and mentioned some sources and references above, just in case anyone is doubting the existence of the alternative form. It's easier to mention the sources and references now as I found them than maybe having to refind them or other sources and references later.
 * Aha. That all makes sense. Thanks for the clarification! — JohnC5 21:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

This link might be relevant to the etymology section: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/-tm%CC%A5m%C3%B3s