Talk:duodecentum

RFV discussion: May–June 2020
IP insists this is not attested based on a source. &mdash; surjection &lang;??&rang; 17:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Cf. duodecentesimus. 2A02:2121:28A:E1AB:D8A7:4230:37DD:8C56 18:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * May be a Neo-Latin coinage: 1562, 1864. Ain92 (talk) 20:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Also (1675),  (1707),  (2016).  --Lambiam 20:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Edited accordingly. 2A02:2121:28A:E1AB:6CD9:DBEB:A6C3:5CA 21:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Is this mention by 15th-century humanist a proscription against such usage? It may have been quite common in Medieval Latin as well (scribes likely calqued numbers in their native languages), however ML lexicography is too undeveloped and I couldn't find the word in ML dictionaries. =(
 * It just says it's singular and explains its usage, I don't see any proscription. It's not attested in various obvious Medieval Latin corpora like Migne or the Monumenta Germaniae Historiae so it's unlikely to have been common, though it could potentially appear in unpublished manuscripts. I don't know what language it would reflect, though, since the subtractive compounds dropped from Romance fairly early afaik—even by Late Latin for the most part, it seems (cf.). So I would guess that duodecentum was conjured up by the humanists to fit the subtractive pattern up to 90, and its absence from ML dictionaries is not an oversight on the lexicographers' part. —Nizolan (talk) 03:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for such an exhaustive answer! Do you think you could add this reasoning to the etymology of the word? Ain92 (talk) 12:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * New Latin cited above. (So much for formalities.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


 * RFV-kept. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)