Talk:lausa

RFV discussion: January–February 2020
and I were having a on the the verifiably of Latin, and whether it should be instead reconstructed as. I thought it would be a most benefit to move the whole discussion here for others to comment on. -- 21:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

🇨🇬 gives an entirely different derivation by the way. I find that is attested, exactly in  II, 5181, II, 54 (which the Germans have digitized, and commented by  in Wölfflins Archiv 2, 605–607, who claimed a Greek origin). In Middle Latin it is attested as lausa anyway. More descendants in  by the way. I suggest to move to attested or, add the other descendants, and quote the inscription sentence there, l. 53–55. And even better, we have a quote in ’s line 730–731 in the meaning grave slab, as  emends this locus which only thereby makes sense in Wölfflins Archiv 4, 258, which also excludes the Celtic origin, although  has scruples in Wölfflins Archiv 7, 113–114. Oh, well, seems like I add the quotes and cites faster now, having all open, but I leave you the other descendants. Fay Freak (talk) 02:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, here you go, I have created lausa with quotes and references and the “reconstructed” page and its history can be cleaned by its deletion. Celtic derivation may or may not be the case. Even before the Plautus occurrence has been found Bücheler had pointed to Greek. . Fay Freak (talk) 03:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's been 4 years since I worked on that entry, but there is good reason I created it as a reconstruction, which is that it's attestation is way late (14th century), much later than its OF attestation, so if anything, the Latin is a reborrowing. I don't think the reconstructed entry should be deleted, and have removed the delete request. Also, this should have been brought up as a discussion on the entry itself or in WT:RFVN. -- 07:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I see now the quotes you added. The first one seems highly suspect and the second one could be considered a derivative or related form. -- 08:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Victar, those "attestations" both fail on the count that the Plautus one does not seem to be a common reading of that line at all and the other one has an -i-, so it cannot attest the form without -i-. Adams 2007 writing about the regional diversification of Latin in Late Antiquity, an excellent book I might add, also has *lausa. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 09:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * (Should probably note that Adams lists lausia as a regionalism and as being derived from *lausa.) — Mnemosientje (t · c) 10:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * None fail. It does not need to be a common reading. Pre-1887 editions do no speak for anything because they could not know it is the correct reading, and later editors, especially Anglo-Saxons, likely did not read the article that is easily missed. “Common readings” are as irrelevant as “notability”. You would need to argue that the reading is bad; but it is the best, as only this makes sense but the other readings little, and yet still if other readings are preferrable it is not compelling to consider the attestation invalid, because an existing reading alone is enough for an entry, in fact the sole occurrence in Friedrich Schöll is enough as per the usual rules for Latin, and also 14th century occurrences or not, their occurrence in Middle Latin is enough to have the entry, so one shouldn’t have deleted lausa in any case; also the fact that you made the references disappear points to your standpoints being Germanophobic bias. The claim of lausia being “a derivation” is dubious because -ia is not used so/does not have a fitting meaning; many others just quote the word “lausa, lausia” like they are alternative forms. That there is a Romance descendant list does not say we should have a duplicate entry in the reconstruction namespace for earlier occurrences: Rather we should take the easier way and have all in the main namespace if such an entry is supportable. I restore the entry now and RFD that reconstruction. You would need to RFD mine, as you claim the procedure for your entry. Fay Freak (talk) 12:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Leaving aside the unwarranted bad-faith claim of Germanophobia (seriously, drop the victim mentality), I will summarize my view. The discussion as I see it hinges on a couple of points, of which the primary question is whether lausa (which appears to be attested in Middle Latin) is attested in pre-medieval Latin as well. Two purported attestations are mentioned:
 * Fay Freak has mentioned sources which treat lausia, which is unambiguously attested in an inscription from Portugal (2nd century AD) in the plural form lausiae, as a mere variant of lausa, and initially used that word as one of two purported ancient attestations added to the Latin entry at lausa, adding lausia'; as an alternative form on the entry lausa. The question is whether one accepts this form with -i- as an attestation for lausa which lacks that -i-: I do not and have found a recent scholarly source (mentioned at lausia) treating the form with -i- as a derivate, but Fay Freak seemingly does, or did (based on his addition of that inscription as citation on the mainspace entry at lausa, which I have since moved to lausia'').
 * Fay Freak has also tracked down a reading of a line (731) from Plautus' Truculentus (2nd century BC), where the manuscript text lausum (which has no known meaning and is widely assumed to be a scribal error) has been emended by various scholars to various different readings, of which pausum and lessum seem to be the most common, but at least one scholar (Friedrich SchÖll) has corrected this to lausam, which would be an attestation in the accusative singular of lausa. The second purported attestation therefore hinges on Schöll's interpretation of lausum (emending it to lausam) from the late 19th century, which has seemingly found no supporters since, although I have not researched this beyond spending some time Googling. The question is then whether one scholar's emendation is attestation enough: technically speaking, it is after all mentioned in one text (the emended reading proposed by Schöll), but it still is just a possible and not widely supported reading. Personally, I think this is a weak attestation and would not present it uncritically, but Fay Freak disagrees.
 * It may be best to unify the reconstructed and mainspace entry in the mainspace entry lausa, as the word is apparently attested in Middle Latin and thus should absolutely have a mainspace entry anyway, as Fay Freak has pointed out. However, we should then note the uncertainties regarding its pre-medieval attestation (which requires accepting lausia as attestation for lausa and/or considering the single scholarly emendation lausam to be sufficient attestation) in the etymology section, following my view that the adduced "attestations" are too weak (this is ofc. up for debate). The definition line would then have a "Vulgar and Middle Latin" or something along those lines, as that is the only context in which it is unambiguously attested, if the medieval Latin dictionaries are correct (I have not checked). — Mnemosientje (t · c) 10:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Apparently “to comment on”, but not an RFV, the RFV-template on the page lausa being only there to link this. Because there is no point to RFV it as it is quoted in the linked Du Cange, in addition to the Plautus verses quoted from Schöll. Cross-linking Requests_for_deletion/Non-English. Or he is actually RFVing he is own Reconstruction, because according to his comment in its edit history it is more appropriate, than my RFD? Strange, because reconstructed terms are unattested by definitions, and it is not about “verifying” the reconstruction with cites either, because it is not disputed that many books posit this, but at the same time one cannot have a reconstruction if the word is attested in the same language. This identity thing seems to really blow people’s minds procedurally. Fay Freak (talk) 10:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree all this moving of discussions is muddying the discussion a bit. I have summarized my view above in any case. Having given it some thought, leaving aside the discussion of purported ancient attestations, lausa should have a mainspace entry in any case as a Middle Latin word, so an RFV again seems a bit off, but whatever tbh. Kinda weird situation as, in my and Victar's view, the Romance descendants apparently predate the Latin attestations (which are Middle Latin and apparently reborrowed from Romance). — Mnemosientje (t · c) 11:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If we put a descendants list, we claim that the terms in the languages descendant from the term in the language, not that their attestations descend from its attestations, which could sometimes mean the stated etymon is attested later. For example Middle Persian has been written in the 9th century (example ) still though New Persian should exist since the (Arabic incursion in the) late 7th century, and it is not a contradiction if we say the New Persian descendants from the Middle Persian if this is only attested then, after all the literary language then indeed represented the older language. This has often been misthought. Fay Freak (talk) 11:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree that examples of forms with an i do not attest this i-less form. It would appear that Plautus also did not use this spelling. Is this spelling attested a sufficient number of times in any (even modern) stage of Latin? If not, it fails RFV. Whereas, iff it is directly attestable, then the reconstruction page can be merged into it, since what would the reconstruction page amount to beyond "it can be reconstructed that this word existed (based on the existence of descendants of it) without being written down, prior to being written down"? - -sche (discuss) 18:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I've found one citation, from March 1328, quoted in one older and one modern book (which are, obviously, not independent of each other, but are presented here because they confirm the spelling etc): - -sche (discuss) 18:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 1841, Clément Compayré, Études historiques et documents inédits sur l'Albigeois, le Castrais, et l'ancien diocèse de Lavaur, page 307:
 * Philippe de Valois ratifie en 1328 les priviléges et immunités accordés au nom du Roi: Item quod habitatores possint et sit eis licitum capere lausam, arenam et petram de dicto loco aut suis pertinentiis et ressorto ad aedificandum et construendum, dum tamen satisfiat domino possessionis de qua dictae lapides lausae et arenae capiuntur de damno ei evenienti ex exeptione praedictonum, si quod sit.  Datum Parisius anno domini M CC [sic] XXVIII mense martio.
 * 1985, Odon de Lingua de Saint-Blanquat, La fondation des bastides royales dans la sénéchausée de Toulouse aux XIIIe et XIVe siècles
 * [22] Lettres patentes de Philippe VI de mars 1328-1329, dans Compayré, op. cit., p. 307. «Item quod habitatores possint... capere lausam, arenam et petram de dicto loco aut suis pertinentiis et ressorto ad aedificandum et construendum dum tamen satisfia[n]t domino possessionis de qua dictae lapides, lausae et arenae capiuntur.»
 * You talk as though you think that we have autographs of Plautus. “It would appear that Plautus also did not use this spelling.” But that’s the questioned point, whether he did. Manuscript are all more than a millenium later (most from the 12th century CE for Plautus), copied in medieval copyist schools by being recited, that’s how most Latin and Greek works from antiquity are attested, we do not have Plautus’s handwriting or ’s. Consequentially there are many problems with the establishment of what is the text, and there is a whole science around it called ; it is yet unsettled how much a disputed reading counts on Wiktionary. For Latin, one quote is the sufficient number, but thanks anyhow for the quotes. I have noticed that you often add quotes giving the year of the edition the quote is in as year, but that should contain the year the original language is dated to (approximately, in so far as possible). For example quoting  from a 2010 edition as from 2010 instead as from 1883 is confusing. Fay Freak (talk) 14:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Another, from 1449: - -sche (discuss) 18:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 1860, L. Alliez, Les îles de Lérins, Cannes et les rivages environnants, pages 433-437:
 * Droits que le monastère ou l'abbate de Saint-Honorat a sur Cannes (1449). Item quôd urethenus seu persona habens trainum de piscibus captis seu piscatis ad petram latam et ad lausam brachii dictae S. Margaritae, aut si contigerit cos alibi piscari super mare dicti conventûs infrà designato ipsi conventui,  aut si contigeret eos alibi piscari sub districtu abbatiae, praeter ad petram altam et ad lausam dictae insulae, quae pertinent omni tempore conventui Lerinensi,
 * Archives de Lérins, Drag. Liasse no. 327.

One more medieval text, quoted in a work which I can't see enough of to determine the original date of: finds several other citations. Unless there are problems with these citations, I believe this is cited. - -sche (discuss) 19:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 1995, Francisco Rodríguez Iglesias, María del Mar Pérez Negreira, Galicia: Historia : Galicia en la época medieval, page 380:
 * Infra hos terminos, uidelicet, per Coua de Serpente et per petram domni Ueremundi uocatam, et inde ad cautum de Riuo Sicco, et inde ad lausam de super Curuiti, et deinde quomodo uadit ad anbas gemianas, et inde ad cautum de Fonte Sacrato.

I have moved this disputed/problematic Plautus citation out of the entry and added the citations I mentioned above (formatted with the original dates where possible): - -sche (discuss) 19:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Attesting Medieval Latin has never been a problem. The issue that it's, in all likelihood, a Latin reborrowing from Old French or Occitan, which is quite often the case with Gaulish and Franish borrowings, and this theory is fortified by the French loans into Italian, Spanish, etc., which are not derived from the Latin. To say that the Old French is borrowed from attested Latin would be categorically false. --  19:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm... so do you also object to Reconstruction:Latin/lausa saying Old French derives from it (the reconstructed Latin word)? Indeed, do you think Reconstruction:Latin/lausa should exist / do you think lausa existed (even if not attested) as a Latin word before the Middle Ages attestations? It seems to me that if someone thinks lausa can be reconstructed as having been a Latin word at one time (even if not necessarily written down), which is a necessary condition for Reconstruction:Latin/lausa to exist, ... and then lausa was also later was written down and directly attested, ... then we don't need a reconstruction page, all we need is to clarify in the main-namespace entry lausa that later attestations may be reborrowings from a Romance language, and if necessary repeat that in the Old French entry, like "From Vulgar Latin lausa (which may have died out and later been reborrowed back into Medieval Latin from Old French)". Eh... I'm open to being persuaded otherwise, but the other cases I've found so far where a word can be inferred/known to have existed at one time, and then existed again with the same written form (and especially where it had the same meaning!) at another time, even where it was more clearly a reborrowing, seem to all be handled on the same mainspace page, with etymology notes, and usually even under the same etymology section, like musette, adjust, peridot, or σύριγγα. ( and use separate etymology sections, but the latter and arguably also the former also seem more like semantic loans, which might or might not be better handled under one etymology like in the Greek entry.) - -sche (discuss) 22:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Did exist? I guess that depends on where you draw the line between Latin, Proto-Gallo-Romance, and French. I think the Medieval Latin forms are just lexograph words. To restress, to say that the French descends from an attested Latin form, implies to the reader that the Medieval Latin descends directly from (Late, Classical) Latin -- it does not -- and people will look to the descendants sections before they read any etymology that tries to explain differently. I'm also not really seeing how any of the examples you give are truly comparable to this case. --  16:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Pinging other Latin speakers/knowersm, if they'd like to give input on how this should be handled. (This is apparently not as much a question of attestation as presentation, of the mainspace vs Reconstruction: pages.) - -sche (discuss) 22:48, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, this (main-namespace page) passes RFV. There is an ongoing discussion of the related reconstruction page at RFD. But (in the absence of feedback from anyone else, and given that this is amply cited) this meets the criteria for passing RFV. - -sche (discuss) 00:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)