Talk:ambaxtos

x
Is this really attested with x? —CodeCat 22:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The x is attested in the form, which you can find on page 191 in Lambert (2007). I was wondering, why is it found it and not in . --Victar (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The -tus ending suggests an adaptation to Latin, rather than a native Gaulish speaker writing their language. Though the use of x is rather un-Latin. —CodeCat 23:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Right, the fully Latinized form would have been . We also have the form to boot. --Victar (talk) 23:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Lambert (2007) and Delamarre (2003) mention ambaxtus and ambactus, which indeed might be (partly) latinized. I can find neither "ambaxtos" or "ambaktos". Delamarre (p. 40) lemmatizes it as "ambactos", but he doesn't discuss in the introduction on what basis he chose lemma forms. As for wiktionary, ambaxtos does seem the expected form, but it's not attested, nor is an inflected form of it, so shouldn't we have *ambaxtos? How do we lemmatize Gaulish? —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 13:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The form ambaktos is cited by Matasovic as being a quote from Festus, but the quote is “ambactus apud ennium lingus gallica servus dicitur”, so clearly his own lemmatization. I would support this entry being moved to a reconstruction, as it's only attested in Latin texts. --  18:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to its being moved to Reconstruction space. —Mahāgaja · talk 18:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)