Talk:camminus

RFV discussion: May 2016–April 2017
This word is variously cited as Vulgar Latin and Late Latin, sometimes giving the seventh century as a date. It is not classical and I am not sure where to find an example if it is indeed Late Latin. If it is Vulgar Latin, the Romance language etymology citations ought to be changed, and the word ought to be moved to the appendix for VL. reconstructions. I am not sure that the nineteenth century German dictionary implies there is an actual Latin source, but the word is also referenced as Late Latin here: https://archive.org/details/etymologicaldict00diezuoft  The word is also described here thus: `spoken Latin camminus, first documented in Spain in the seventh century.'  (hyperlink: https://books.google.com/books?id=8c2k5GSn8eAC&pg=PA6&dq=camminus&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjioKfY8-TMAhXMK48KHSiGBysQ6AEIQTAF#v=onepage&q=camminus&f=false )  I do not know if spoken implies not written. Isomorphyc (talk) 00:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I cannot judge the context of these cites, so they may be invalid.








 * DTLHS (talk) 01:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for looking. The first and third are misspellings for caminorum.  The Johannes Hering citation itself corrects the double-m spelling to caminis in the chapter heading and camini in the passage numbered 28, which also speaks of smoke and fumes.   Saint Augustine is talking about pyres, and in other texts the spelling is caminorum.  In the Italian and Spanish translations the words are roghi and hogueras (regrettably I can't find an English translation).


 * http://www.augustinus.it/latino/contro_gaudenzio/index2.htm
 * http://www.augustinus.it/italiano/contro_gaudenzio/index2.htm
 * http://www.augustinus.it/spagnolo/contro_gaudenzio/index2.htm


 * Where the translations speak of `imboccata la scorciatoia' and `encontrado el atajo,' that is, `taking the shortcut,' this is for `reperto compendio,' not a sense of `camminus.' Of course it would be more than surprising to find Augustine to use it in the fifth century.


 * The second citation seems to be a genuine mediaeval usage; the text offers the date of the cited document as 1268. One would not be surprised by this usage, though it is far from Late Latin.  I would like to mark the sole definition as mediaeval and offer this text as a citation, with a pointer to the seventh-century comment in the references, if this seems reasonable to others, and pending earlier citations.


 * Isomorphyc (talk) 16:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * RFV-passed, apparently. - -sche (discuss) 20:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)