Talk:insignis

RFV discussion: April–May 2019
Latin adjective. Lewis and Short only have it as the genitive of the noun. Needs massive cleanup if OK. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The neuter nominative of Latin adjectives and participles are often substantivized to act as nouns; in Latin, a substantivized adjective is the equivalent of, and may replace, a noun. Latin "insigne" is a noun which is in reality a substantivized adjective, as is clear from the morphology thereof. It is derived from "insignis", rather than the obverse, much in the same way that the noun "actum" is substantivized from "actus", the perfect passive participle of the verb "ago". I would be surprised to see that Lewis and Short, a copy of which I do not have, held "insignis" to be a derivative of "insigne", if, indeed, that is what is being claimed.
 * Allen and Greenough in section 289 describe the use nominally of substantivized neuter adjectives.
 * Gildersleeve and Lodge on page 134 of their Latin Grammar describe substantivization of "secondary" adjectives in the neuter.
 * Cassell's Latin Dictionary presents "insigne" as a noun. Of course, as shown in the grammars, as cited above, it is in reality a substantivized adjective. If Lewis and Short do not list "insigne" as a noun, then I would argue that it is remiss.
 * Wheelock's Grammar has only a brief discussion of adjectival substantivization, in chapter 4, page 35 in my copy, but it does not deal with nominalization from the adjectival neuter.
 * The Cassell Latin Dictionary shows the etymology of "insignis" to be: "(in/signum)", supporting the idea that "insignis" is derived from "signum", rather than from "insigne", and that "insigne" is nominalized from the neuter form of "insignis".
 * This is a lot of bludgeoning that isn't really even addressing the points. &mdash; surjection &lang;?&rang; 18:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If "insigne" was maintained to be the origin of "insignis", then "insigne" itself would have to be derived from "signum" with a suffixation of "-e", but this cannot be, because "-e" represents only the vocative masculine singular declentive of adjectives in "-us", or is the suffix used to form adverbs (with the macron, of course). The "-e" of "insigne" is, rather, a declentive form, forming the neuter nominative, accusative and vocative of adjectives in "-is", it is not a suffixation.
 * I have tried to address, hopefully with success" the notion that "insignis" exists as a declentive if "insigne", which I thought was being suggested. I began working on the "insignis" page because I found that the existing page did little to promote understanding of this adjective beyond what Cassell's and other basic Latin-English dictionaries do, such as identifying what may be modified in the sentence by it, and I wished to improve the resource. wiktionary seems to be in a unique position of being able to provide full understanding of a term, in such a way as is beyond the scope of a paper dictionary.
 * Having never attempted it, I am unfamiliar with how to properly attest and cite sources in Wiktionary (which I have found very helpful, by the way). I will try to read up on that in the coming days. If more specific instances can be presented where attestation is deemed wanting, I will try to either provide such attestation or will delete that section of the page. Thanks, and, by the way, my name is Michael.


 * I don’t understand the basis for the statement “Lewis and Short only have it as the genitive of the noun .” See . This is a full-fledged entry that starts – as one would expect – with the line “insignis, e, adj. in-signum,” followed by a definition and lots of attestations. We see the same at . Both dictionaries indicate that the noun comes from this adjective. The genitive singular of  coincides in form for all genders, and therefore also for the neuter insigne, with the masculine/feminine nominative.  --Lambiam 19:17, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I certainly want to avoid being “disruptive” to a source (Wiktionary) which I have often found both helpful and inspiring. Originally, I was having a lot of trouble with fully understanding “insignis”, especially in reconciling the usual translations in light of the etymology thereof. I could find no extensive treatments of the word in any grammar available to me, or anywhere on “Google Books”. The dictionaries that I consulted, of which Wiktionary was one, gave no indications about the word’s ability to modify either the bearer of a sign or that which is indicated by a sign. That I had to discern by inspecting quotations from the literature. I also could not thereby discern the differing categories of sense (as I discern them) between “indicated” and “differentiated” as pertains to how “insignis” seems to be able to describe the bearer of a sign. For these reasons, I was originally moved to improve this page because it did not, in its original state, deal with these aspects of the word (indeed, I could find no source that did), and I desired a more explicit treatment of them for the benefit of all.
 * Hi, this is Mike. I want to thank Lambiam for the clarification of that. I do not own a copy of Lewis and Short's Dictionary, and I was so shocked (and made incredulous) by the initial assertion here that I was thrown into a bit of a "fit" of verification, as can be discerned above. I went to the "drawing board" with a clean sheet of paper and a pencil this morning in an effort to trim, consolidate, and otherwise reorganize my thoughts about this page, and so to render it more concise and to bring it into conformity. This was almost immediately fruitful, as I was able to remove much material relating to the meaning of "to signify"/"significare", which acts upon the sign itself, rather than that which bears a sign or is indicated by a sign (those things described by insignis). It seems much cleaner now. If anyone notices a need for attestation, please note that here, and I will try to provide it. Much better now, but certainly a work in progress…
 * No thanks are required. I wonder, though, why you did not simply click the link to L&S online provided in the References section. --Lambiam 16:04, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh, no need to wonder, Lambiam...sometimes I am just stoopid! By the way, SemperBlotto was absolutely correct in his initial criticisms. My additions were quite confused and overly wordy. It took me some time to work out how to present what I wanted to here.
 * The IP has provided quotes copiously, dispelling doubts about the term’s existence, so this is RFV passed, and I have pruned it to tolerable size. Keep it around this size and don’t inflate it again, dear IP! And not to pull boners and not to waste your own time, I recommend you to move to quote the next article with your remarkable skills – that yet have to be refrained and find contentment.
 * Apart from that I want to note that irrespective of what Lewis & Short says in Georges this is mainly an adjective. Fay Freak (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion from Requests for cleanup
Latin. Ouch, what a mess... —Rua (mew) 19:03, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Cleanup will not help at present as at least one IP is still making dozens of edits to the entry per day. Equinox ◑ 18:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Why not protect the page? I'm tired of seeing all these minute changes when I patrol annons. --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I wonder if the "request for cleanup" might be removed at this point. The entry seems to fairly clearly portray the (quite varied) possible meanings for an adjective which has no directly equivalent translation in English, grouped into categories of sense and without rendering a lot of extraneous commentary. I hope that it is found to be acceptable. If there are any suggestions regarding this, please provide them here.

I hope that Rua, Robbie or Equinox will encounter this, as I would like feedback on the current status of this page. I do not have a Wiktionary account at present, and might consider creating one in the future, but do not want to do so at present. Specifically, I would like verification that the page conforms to Wiktionary's entry layout formatting requirements, and also would appreciate your thoughts about the presentation in general. I have endeavored to separate what I view as the more fundamental meanings of "insignis" from those derived and extended from that fundamental sense (indeed, my original motive for investigating this word derived from my realization that three of the most common translations presented for this term: "remarkable", "distinguished", and "marked" all seem to have entirely different senses from one another, and from my efforts to understand their relationship to one another). Please let me know what you think of the current presentation, and if the current "request for cleanup" might be removed. I am loath to take the initiative to remove Rua's request without such feedback (read: "permission"). Thanks much.

By the way, I encountered with some delight Rua's partial translation into Proto-germanic of Beowulf on his talk page...fantastic!
 * her, not his. Back on topic though, the definition lines still have what I think is superfluous at the beginning, and I don't think every definition line needs 10-12 different near synonyms. &mdash; surjection &lang;?&rang; 14:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

My goodness, Rua...sorry for that! (I'll just have to chalk that one up to my innate male bias.) Thank you, Surjection. Do I understand correctly that your reference to "near synonyms" refers to the Latin synonyms, or otherwise to an excess of possible translations in English as well?
 * I'm talking about the English translations for the words. &mdash; surjection &lang;?&rang; 13:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can apprehend the desirability of such sparseness when viewed from the lexicographic perspective. I certainly am no lexicographer (indeed, I am out of my league when dealing with those who can translate Beowulf into Proto-Germanic), and so can have difficulty in keeping such considerations in mind. I included so many possible definitions because of the fact that insignis has no direct equivalent in English, and all possible English translations must be viewed as mere approximations of its meaning. I will attend to paring down the first definition line (the "fundamental" sense), which is that most cumbersome, without delay. If there are any further suggestions, pray tell them.