Talk:fars

RFV discussion: August 2019–February 2021
@Lambiam I don't think this is a word. It was added Feb 2019 and isn't found in L+S or Gaffiot. Benwing2 (talk) 02:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * It's in the Oxford Latin Dictionary, but in parentheses because the nominative is not attested. It lists the following attestations:
 * esa farte -- Plautus, fragmenta incerta 143;
 * (facetiously) non uestem amatores amant mulieri', sed uestis fartim -- Mostellaria 169
 * (figuratively) fartem (conjecture) facere ex hostibus -- Miles Gloriosus 8
 * Since these are all from Plautus, it should be categorized as Old Latin. --Lvovmauro (talk) 03:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Plautus isn't exactly considered Old Latin normally, but these attestations seem questionable, given their labeling as "conjecture" and "fragmenta incerta". fartim is a potentially separate adverb. Benwing2 (talk) 03:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Plautus is Old Latin. by the way mentions distinctions and different senses of "Old Latin". --Pitza Guy (talk) 08:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Stop this. As I have mentioned for example on Plautus is Old Latin in some sense, but what that “Old Latin” on Wiktionary is referring to is Latin even older than that. “Inscriptional Latin” that is old enough that you cannot easily understand it. Fay Freak (talk) 13:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No. Plautus is Old Latin. That Wiktionary might misuse the term "Old Latin" in an arbitrary and self-defined way to mean something else doesn't change this fact. --Pitza Guy (talk) 20:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The entry has been detagged (or was never tagged) and there are three citations above, which — even if we take the fartim one to be for a different word — is sufficient for this to be RFV-passed as a (pre-modern) Latin word, no? And if Wiktionary considers Plautus to be Latin and not Old Latin, then we can continue to do so in this case, pace Pitza Guy's objections that all uses of Plautus should be reclassified. - -sche (discuss) 18:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)