Talk:auctorico

Attestations
Hi @Myrelia. The word is actually attested, according to page 812 of the FEW: https://i.imgur.com/j6BAAWp.png. In Late Latin / Early Medieval Latin texts. The Nicodene (talk) 20:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That is, there are (unattested, reconstructed) and  (attested). --Myrelia (talk) 21:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Myrelia The distinction isn't clear to me, in this case. The attestations date to the ninth century, which is quite early. Perhaps not long after the word came into existence. Do we need separate entries? The Nicodene (talk) 21:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 9th century is also quite late (Appendix Probi from 4th century has some Vulgar Latin and does attest it properly). I don't see any Vulgar Latin attestion, so having with label  seems wrong to me. --Myrelia (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I suppose the current set-up is fine. Sorting out labels like Medieval/Late/Vulgar/Reconstructed Latin is more of a site-wide issue. The Nicodene (talk) 21:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

RFV discussion: July 2019–January 2023
Latin. This is defined as "Vulgar Latin form of ". The comment says "attested by Brodsky in Spanish Vocabulary: An Etymological Approach" but I can't find any attestations in Google Books. Benwing2 (talk) 04:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * . I would not describe this as “attested by”. The following two sources state that comes from auctoricare, auctorare:, ; the latter calls this Late Latin. (Our entry derives  from Late Latin .)  --Lambiam 17:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * @Lambiam Thanks. I think the derivation from auctorizare is more likely via *auctoridiare > *aut(o)reiar > *otroier. The form auctoricare is undoubtedly at the origin of Spanish otorgar but might well have produced OF *otorgier instead (compare carricare > chargier). Benwing2 (talk) 14:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * BTW I don't consider the fact that the above source says "Late Latin auctoricare, auctorare" as an attestation. Benwing2 (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * So move to *auctoricō, because it's unattested, but a necessary preform of Spanish? Is that the gist of what you're saying? Or could it have been derived later within Spanish? —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 12:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * So FEW states that the word is attested, citing various source texts but giving no quotes. But we need quotes, and in the past 3 years nobody here has been able to identify any. Does FEW have an index of source texts? Where does one search for digitised Medieval Latin source texts (other than Brepolis, which mainly has religious texts and turns up nothing for this word)? This, that and the other (talk) 05:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * For whatever reason it seems to generally be printed as auctoriço in modern editions, with a cedilla (since it isn't /k/, I guess). The MLW similarly lists auctoriçare as a variant form of auctorizare. Other than the MLW citation, of a charter of the German duke, I found two instances of auctoriçavit on Google Books from Spanish charters ; unfortunately all three of these are found in mid-20th century editions, so in copyright and hard to dig up in context. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The MLW refers to item 699 in Volume 2 of the Fontes Rerum Bernensium. In an online rendering of a printed edition, published in 1877, we read the form auctorisavit . Was this a Verschlimmbesserung by the editors? --Lambiam 08:43, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It would be good (though, I imagine, difficult) to see the MS itself to check whether the ç was used by the scribe themselves (which it's possible that 19th-century philologists would misread, or emend, as s). The -ico/-iço spelling is unfamiliar to me, but it seems that the letter ç originally emerged as an alternative form of z, so if that orthography was also applied in Latin-writing it makes perfect sense that -izo would be spelled -iço. This source lists conflation of "c, ç and z" as a common feature of Medieval Latin too, so it wouldn't be surprising to see -ico itself.
 * I've managed to dig up one accessible edition where it's printed auctorico (no cedilla), in this case a charter of Emperor Charles IV: " supradictum privilegium approbamus, ratificamus, auctoricamus, roboramus, innovamus, confirmamus " . —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * For what it is worth, the text from the first of these two Spanish (? more like Italian) charters is identified as being from “Originale: perg. 93.” --Lambiam 18:05, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * And the second one, in a Catalan book, occurs in the chapter “Canvi del camp de Vila-rodona”. --Lambiam 18:29, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * RFV-passed based on the FEW entry and the multiple forms it cites in the correct geographic area to match the Romance descendants. There isn't really any doubt as to the existence of this lemma. Nicodene (talk) 01:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)