Talk:clino

Latin, attestation
I have found this possibly attesting hit: --Dan Polansky 16:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "clinare" in Titi Lucretii Cari De rerum natura libri sex, by Titus Carus Lucretius, Thomas Creech, Richard Bentley
 * "Quare etiam atque etiam paullum clinare necesse 'st corpora, nec plus quam minimum, ne fingere motus obliquos videamur, et id res vera refutet."
 * See also De rerum natura, per which it is "a first century BC epic poem by the Roman poet and philosopher Lucretius with the goal of explaining Epicurean philosophy to a Roman audience."
 * The quotation appears to be one of Lucretius rather than one made by the collector Thomas Creech or the commentator or annotator Richard Bentley.
 * TLL has "quare etiam atque etiam paulum inclinare necessest". The GBS result is durably archived and the printed text is without OCR errors, but TLL's text could be from a younger printed edition, and this younger printed edition could indeed have "inclinare" in it and could be more reliable than the older edition from 1818 printed in Oxford. So this clinare could be comparable to punctus (genitive punctūs, sense point). -80.133.124.119 19:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * My French edition has "inclinare" as well, and doesn't even mention "clinare" in the critical apparatus. I wouldn't rely on old editions. --Barytonesis (talk) 11:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Tea room discussion

 * Tea_room/2017/June

--Barytonesis (talk) 23:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

RFV discussion: July 2017–March 2019
According to De Vaan, this is not attested as an independent verb, but only in compounds. —CodeCat 13:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Also see WT:Tea room/2017/June and Talk:clino. According to that
 * it's attested as adjective/participle - which could attest the verb "via an inflected form"
 * it does appear in old editions - and some other words or forms which appear in old editions are also included in wiktionary like punctus (4th declension, sense point).
 * Of course both would require a note which ATM is missing. -84.161.22.3 04:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Correct, there are a number of attestations:
 * First, there is 'clinatus', which is clearly attested but is taken to be a lemma in itself by L&S and thus may not be considered enough to attest the verb (see http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.2:2692.lewisandshort).
 * Second, the one mentioned from Lucretius ('clinare') by Dan Polansky over at Talk:clino, which in more recent editions has been replaced with 'inclinare'.
 * Third, I found a New Latin use of 'clinans', e.g. here.
 * Fourth, I found uses of 'clinavit' here in older editions of Petronius' Satyricon. Modern editions seem to correct this to 'clamavit'; some seem to also have 'inclinavit'.
 * That's what I could find in about fifteen minutes worth of searching - although it's quite difficult to look for this on Google Books, since a lot of the "results" are scanno's of the prefixed form or ones that have been separated from their prefix through a line/page break (e.g. "de- clinans"). I think it could possibly even be kept, since these are after all uses in durable sources (though erroneous/nonstandard they may be). It must then be mentioned however that a) in Classical Latin, only the past participle was in use and b) that New Latin uses are rare and nonstandard and are often (thought to be) misreadings of older texts that have been corrected in more recent editions. I'll add a note to that effect now, if someone disputes that this is enough ground to keep the entry we can talk about it some more. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 11:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * RFV passed, it seems. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 19:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)