Talk:cotidie

@Urszag: Hi! I've seen your correction to my edit, but I was wondering: is the disputed line, usually edited away, in Catullus 68 the only example of a possible "cōtīdiē"? If that's the case, is it not a bit too little and too week evidence, especially considering that never has ō? — Sartma 【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】 17:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The PedeCerto database of hexameter/pentameter lines shows three examples in late Latin poetry: one in Anthologia Latina 128 Riese ("ANTH. Lat. 128, 10 Ḗt dĕdĕrī́t quǣstū́s cṓttĭdĭā́nă Vĕnús,"), two in "carmina epigraphica" ("CE CLE 00629, 9 Cṓttĭdĭḗ  flētū́s  dāt, ḗt  īn  pḗctŏrĕ pā́lmas.", "CE CLE 01424, 10 Cṓttĭdĭā́nă tĭbī́ lū́cră fŭḗrĕ d(ĕú)s."). PedeCerto gives these spellings with -tt-, and presumably we can be confident in the original spelling in the case of the epigraphic poems. Of course, metrically /koːti/ and /kotti/ are equivalent.--Urszag (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Urszag: I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to prove with those examples. PedeCerto gives the length of syllables, not of vowels. That's why you have ēt for, dĕdĕrīt for , lūcră for , pēctŏrĕ for , and so on. None of those vowels are long there: the macron only shows that the syllable is long.
 * The examples you gave are not a proof that "cotīdiē" had an ō. — Sartma 【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】 09:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's possible to prove that the word could have a long vowel in the first syllable: I think any evidence for that will be equally consistent with it being pronounced with a long consonant preceded by a short vowel. However, given the uncertainty about the source of the consonant length, and the presence of alternations between short vowel + long consonant and long vowel + short consonant in other words (e.g. the lītera/littera type), I don't think it's possible to conclude with certainty that the vowel was never long, either. Lindsay (The Latin Language 1894:560), when listing three or so competing hypotheses about the origin of the form, says that "Some [derive the first portion from] quō-tus, a correlative of tōtus (cf. totos dies, Plaut. Aul. 73; totis horis, Mil. 212)". If a note is left about the pronunciation, I don't oppose replacing ō̆ with o in the headline.--Urszag (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Urszag: I would definitely keep the note about the pronunciation, I wasn't suggesting deleting it. It's all very pertinent information.
 * I do understand the reasoning based on other words like /, but in the light of Martial's epigramma 10.65 «Lēvis drōpace tū cotīdiānō», with clearly short o, I just don't think we have enough real proofs to formalise an ō̆ with such certainty in the headline. — Sartma 【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】 11:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)