Talk:Acoetes

Old Latin declension

 * Based on my reading about the state of consonant- and i-stems in Old Latin and Proto-Italic, I'm wondering whether the Old Latin Acoetī̆ might not be ablative singular. would take the ablative in phrases like . I could definitely read cumque sponte suā et carceris forēs apertae essent et vincula Acoetī̆ excidissent, … as “And when, of their own volition, both the doors of the jail had opened and the chains had fallen away from Acoetes, …”. This would have the advantage of allowing the Old Latin Acoetēs to be only a third declension, stradling between a consonant- and an i-stem. What do you think? It seems very odd for a single author to use two separate declensions for the same noun so close together. — JohnC5 21:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I naïfly and unreflectively took Warmington's translating with “Acoetes’” to be an indication that the form was genitive; more fully, Warmington actually translates the passage thus (underscore my emphasis):, which, after due consideration, should've suggested to me that  was not a genitive form. I apologise. I consulted the OLD [, sense 1.a], and it cites two uses of  construed with the dative (which I've cited in full at Citations:excido), viz.  and ; and, like your , it also cites an ablative construction. So, do you think that Pacuvius's construction is more likely to use a dative or an ablative? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 01:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Aha. I could see either due to the confusion of 3rd declension nouns in Old Latin, but if excidō can take dative, then let's do that. That seems to be the most parsimonious solution. — JohnC5 01:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * That was my thinking. I'll make the change. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 01:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Done and done. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 01:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)