Talk:innocentum

I've reverted, as innocentum is definitely not the accusative of innocens. That said, the genitive plural should be, IFIRC, innocentium (compare the declension table at ); maybe there's a collateral second declension form, in which case the edit would be half correct? I don't have time to investigate the matter further right now though. Per utramque cavernam 11:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

My mistake. You are correct. The accusative (masculine and feminine) of innocens is innocentem with an e. Is innocentum a valid alternative spelling of the genitive plural innocentium? Latinstudent (talk) 14:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Georges: "in-nocēns, entis, Abl. gew. [= usually] ente" (which would mean there's both innocente and innocenti)
 * L&S: "in-nŏcens, entis, adj. (gen. plur. innocentūm, Plaut. Rud. 3, 2, 5; but innocentium, Cic. Verr. 4, 52, § 116) [...] As subst.: innŏcens, entis, m."
 * Bad thing: From Georges and L&S one can't know if the ablative innocente and if the genitive plural innocentum belong to the substantive or the adjective. It could be that the adjective is i-declension (gen. pl. -ium) or as pseudo-participle is declined like a participle while the substantive is consonant-declension (abl. -e, gen. pl. -um). This could be an interessting question and giving rise to a good RFV, but sadly I don't have the time for the necessary research right know...
 * Additionaly @ Latinstudent: R U English in which language innocentem and innocentum pronounced in an barbaric English way may sound alike, or do innocentem and innocentum pronounced in your language sound alike anyhow?
 * -84.161.28.28 15:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't use L&S for this kind of question (and honestly, don't use RFV to pursue these questions either). PHI has a pretty complete corpus of Classical Latin, and they show only one use of the gen. pl. innocentum, as a substantive in Plautus. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 20:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't use L&S for this kind of question (and honestly, don't use RFV to pursue these questions either). PHI has a pretty complete corpus of Classical Latin, and they show only one use of the gen. pl. innocentum, as a substantive in Plautus. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 20:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

quam innocentum, qui se scelere fieri nolunt nobiles."
 * L&S does list forms, also some uncommon ones, and gives some sources and/or quotes. It's not always correct and don't attest anything, but is helpful anyway.
 * L&S sources for gen. pl.:
 * has Plautus' Rudens with innocentium, though with innocentum in the apparatus.
 * has Plautus' with ínnocentum
 * Plautus ed. Paul Nixon vol. IV, p. 344f.:
 * "vindicate, ne impiorum potior sit pollentia
 * "Help! Help! Let not the power of the impious be more potent than that of the innocent creatures who wish not the notoriety of being victims of villainy!"
 * has Cicero's In Verrem (4, 52, § 116) with innocentium as adj. ("... blood of innocent Sicilians ...")
 * By this PHI Latin Texts it looks like innocentum only occurs once in Plautus (in Rudens 3, 2, 5 = 619). If PHI Latin Texts would have all old Latin text - which it surely doesn't -, the entry innocentum clearly would be wrong, or give an ML or NL form in an unmarked improper way. Nontheless PHI and A&G (1903, p. 49ff. (3rd declension of adjectives) and p. 54 in § 121 b. (note about gen. pl. -um)) are good reasons to regard it as dubious and RFV it. (As for simply replacing it, I can think of only one ad-hominem argumention to justify it, namely comparing &  and asserting that the entry creator hadn't enough knowledge, but I don't like ad-hominems.)
 * -84.161.35.100 23:24, 18 August 2018 (UTC)