Talk:-uleius

Etymology
Do you have thoughts about this etymology? I feel like this is probably very informative, if I had the patience to look up German philological abbreviations. —JohnC5 (Talk 09:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * So far, see, , , , , , , , and for some abbreviations expanded. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Plus and . — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Six more: see, , , , , and . — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all your additions. Could you take a look at now? —JohnC5 (Talk 01:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Woah, that's some impressive work. How can I help with ? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 01:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Just check over everything to see if it makes sense. For instance, normally a Roman Gens is represented here by its masculine and feminine forms, but I gave the Gens-forming suffix as all three genders.  Should I just do the masculine and feminine forms under that one?  —JohnC5 (Talk 03:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I was also curious whether  ever occur in neuter forms. It took quite a lot of digging, but I found a few relevant sources:
 * 1836, Frederick Percival Leverett (editor), A New and Copious Lexicon of the Latin Language, page 594/2:
 * ŌCTĀVĬŬS, a, um, a Roman gentile name. — ¶ Adj. Octavian.  Sueton. gens. — ¶ Subst. Octavius, or Octavia, a man or woman of this gens.
 * 1994, the ’s Archäologischer Anzeiger [Archaeological Journal], issues 3–4, page 471:
 * Carminia Philemation is new, but her gentile name attaches her to a prominent family of the neighbouring Attouda, the Carminii, who intermarried with families of Aphrodisias in the second century. Her second name appears in literature only as a name of hetairai, but in the real world such neuter names are borne by women of every rank.
 * 1994, Clive Cheesman, “Two Textual Emendations in Varro’s De Lingua Latina” in la Revue de Philologie, de Littérature et d’Histoire Anciennes [the Journal of Philology, Literature and Ancient History], Éditions Klincksieck, volume LXVIII, № 1, page 103:
 * Now it will be seen that, here, Varro admits the existence of the complete triad of masculine, feminine and neuter forms in the case of gentile names, purposefully adding Terentium genus to illustrate the neuter, though such a phrase is notably less obvious and straightforward than those presented to show the masculine and feminine forms. He was correct, of course: neuter attributes of a gens, or neuter achievements of gens members, were frequently given the neuter form of the gentile name by way of a label.
 * In the light of all that, I think you're right to include the neuter forms for that nomen-gentilicium–forming suffix. Also, although the 1994 quotation remarks upon a woman’s neuter cog nomen (or whatever it is),, I think that the reference to hetairai supports my supposition that a gens' promiscuous woman might be taunted in the neuter, thereby insinuating that she is a . — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I've had a look over, which is very good, and tweaked the first two etymology sections. There are two issues I'd like to bring up:
 * I'm not sure about the pronunciation. The L&S entry for  has the headword “plēbēĭus (-ējus)”, which suggests that the word is usually tetrasyllabic, but sometimes trisyllabic; other entries suggest that the  in  is almost always vocalic, and so that  is itself a trisyllable. Do you have research that suggests the contrary?
 * Is -ēius³ a productive suffix, or is it just the Greek analysed in borrowings from Greek, but which were adopted already formed in the Greek? If the latter, are you sure it warrants an entry? (I'm open to arguments that it does warrant one, even if it isn't a productive suffix in Latin.)
 * Again, great work. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your help thus far. As for the  question, I did worry about this.  I couldn't force the diaeresis in the  template, so I think we must manually put  in all the relevant entries.  Should we also represent it that was in the head word (-ēïus and -ulēïus)?  There does seem to be a precedent for this on WT:ALA in the fifth bullet of the second bulleted list; thought the page uses the word umlaut instead of diaeresis.  This is not normally necessary for headers, but in these cases, I think it would be.
 * For the Greek question of Etymology 3, this is by no means a productive suffix (inasmuch as a suffix may be productive in a dead language). I included it because it was mentioned in the Leumann et al. and because, as I was sifting though the different types of -ēius words, that was one of the main categories.  It's in there for completeness's sake but need not necessarily be so.  Also, looking at entries like elegēia, it would appear that Etymology 3 needs to be expanded to to both  and  for complete accuracy, if we decide to keep it.
 * Some further points:
 * Leumann et al. mention that the suffix -eia (of perhaps unknown e vowel length) was used to create foreign ship names such as gandeia, vageia, and horeia (This last article claims that the suffix is Illyrian). Again, this would not be a productive use, but maybe we should have a disambiguating notes section to include this and maybe Etymology 3.
 * It appears that Etymology 1 maybe used sometimes to create toponyms, such as the town of Norēïa and perhaps Bubeium and Luceium.
 * Tertullian has provided us with another gem along the lines of with stercēia.
 * Should I treat -ēia and -ēium as separate lemmas with separate 's because it looks so strange to see under Category:Latin words suffixed with -eius?
 * Want me to create a Latin and an English entry for ?
 * Sorry for dumping all these questions on you, but I find it fascinating. What suffix should I do next?  I was thinking -unculus.  —JohnC5 (Talk 23:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * As you'll have seen, you can force diaereses in with   (which indicates a syllabic break, as in the IPA). Nevertheless, I think it would indeed be a good idea to mark consecutive vowels with hiatûs using the diaeresis; unfortunately, diaereses on vowels other than  are not currently stripped from Latin links (see, for example, ), so we'll need to add ï and ü to the entry-name specifications for m["la"] in Module:languages/data2 if we intend to do that. (I'm also coming round to the view that we should be using  in the titles of Latin lemmata.)
 * I knew nothing of WT:ALA before you linked to it, but I don't hold its prescriptions in high regard at all. We should reproduce texts as faithfully as possible, including in the case of Classical authors, in which cases we must necessarily cite specific (modern) editions of their works. (Also, it's weird that it prescribes to indicate feminine first-declension ablative singular forms;  is by far the most common way of indicating this.)
 * Are and  productive suffixes in Ancient Greek? Does  have a discernible sense retained in all or most of the words in which it features? Why do you suppose that, , and  are derived from ?
 * Given the fact that we would lemmatise nouns of differing genders derived from, I think that yes, it would be a good idea to treat its feminine and neuter forms, and , as separate lemmata.
 * Because the OLD has an entry for, I figured I might as well create an entry for it, since I had the means. If you're wondering which affix to work on next, may I propose that you turn your hand to some Ancient Greek affixes? I know of no source that describes them, so such work would have considerable lexicographical novelty.
 * Lastly, would you mind translating the paragraph to which you linked above (in your post timestamped: 09:05, 8 December 2014), please? I figure it would be a good idea to add demonstrations of usage to those several entries for German abbreviations I created; unfortunately, my German isn't good enough. If you have the time and inclination, that is. Regards: — I.S.M.E.T.A. 03:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's a rough translation. Feel free to unravel it from translationese (I believe it is clear enough).
 * Literature pertaining to nomina gentilicia (from patronyms): Schulze, EN 385 f. –eius, 432 ff. –eius (older still in Etruscan name stems –aeus), 457 f. –eius and –uleius; as in 284 lēguleius sterteius. — The morphological analysis in Schulze 425 f. is indefensible: Indo-European suffix –ios with e/o-nouns both with and without stem-final vowels, hence on the one hand –e-ijos Greek –ειος Latin –eius, on the other hand Greek –ιος Latin –ius. The main evidence for Greek –ειος, the Aeolic use of patronymic –ειος with o-stems, is an innovation; this –ειος is used as a universal suffix with consonant stems; and it derives from nouns in –ης as a –ιος-derivation, thus –ειος [is] near –ης in Thessaly, Schwyzer, Del. 567 (–ης written as –εις) q.v. 80 f. Ἱπποχράτειος, 99 f. Ἀντιφάνειος, 112 Ἀντιγένειος; patronymic on Lesbos 623, 56 Ἱερογένειος, 640 Σωγένειος, fem. 621, 11 as the name Ἑλλανοχράτεια; the example for –γένειος etc. was presumably the non-patronymic fem. –εια (Homeric ἠριγένεια, Ἰφιγένεια, Εὐρύχλεια or –χλέεια). — Indefensible in Latin –eius like Greek Aeolic –ειος Solta 87.

I realize now that those abbreviations you added were from a paragraph which I did not use (I mostly used the previous few paragraphs. :) Your points about the i ~ j and diaereses are well made, though I think that ï and ü can represent this distinction parsimoniously. Incidentally, I have been mostly ignoring the prohibition on the use of macra in WT:ALA. As for, , and Nō̆rēïa, just idle speculation, as ever. I think I will actually do, , and and how they relate to   next. —JohnC5 (Talk 11:06, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Re "those abbreviations you added were from a paragraph which I did not use": d'oh! Oh well, I hope that at least some of the abbreviations I defined were used thereafore and therefore helpful to you. Thanks for the translation. I altered it slightly (see, e.g., Citations:Lit.) — nothing major. One thing I will note, however, is that you mistook the letter chi for the letter kappa in four instances; your confusion is understandable, since the text makes use of, a common cursive variant of , which looks like an undescended ; the name is , not *, for instance. (As a point of trivia, note that the kai ligature, , derives from the cursive kappa.)
 * I asked ObsequiousNewt to add diaeresis-stripping for Latin links,, so we can now use diaereses in Latin links for disambiguatory purposes.
 * I hope work on those Latin suffixes proves illuminating. :-)  — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I am a doofus. Of course you are right and what I wrote makes no phonological sense. —JohnC5 (Talk 02:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Not at all. The cursive-kappa issue initially confused the hell out of me, too; when I first came across τέϰτων, I searched for * for over an hour until I finally realised that the word I wanted is . I didn't want you to labour under the same misapprehension that I did. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 12:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if it's any use or whether you're already familiar with it, but I thought I would add some information anyway. Both Latin and Greek experienced loss of -j- between vowels in their earlier history; Greek lost /j/ altogether so it didn't have this phoneme. This means that any i-letter that appears in these languages between two vowels must represent a syllabic /i/ IF it's inherited from the earlier language. In Latin, there is one alternative, a geminate /jj/ (as in, ) which derives from earlier /sj/, /dj/ and /gj/. So this means that if -eius is Greek, it must be trisyllabic unless the "ei" is /eː/ (spurious diphthong). If it's Latin in origin, then the i represents either /i/ or /jj/. —CodeCat 23:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, CodeCat; I find that very helpful to know, especially in its relevance to Latin. It will serve my reasoning about such matters in future. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * That makes a lot of sense, CodeCat! I'm glad to know that now.  —JohnC5 (Talk 02:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)