Talk:ludicer

Discussions of the word in old(ish) works: - -sche (discuss) 03:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * c. 1600,, Obseruationum linguae Latinae, page 34, chapter XL:
 * Dicaturne Ludicer sermo, an Ludicrus sermo? [...] Ludicer dicendum videtur, vt alacer, volucer, acer, non ludicrus. Sed obstat, quod foemininum illius est ludicra, non ludicris. Horum vero foeminina non sunt alacra, volucra, &c. sed alacris, volucris, que & masculini sunt generis, &c. Videtur igitur dicendum. Ludicer, vt macer a um, sacer a um, pulcer a um. Ambrosius Calepinus huic sententiae accedit. Contra Ludicrus (vt lubricus & tetricus) habet Nizolius, & Lexicon Basiliense vetus. Nullum enim praeter Ludicrus si genuinum est adiectuum, exit in Crus. Itaq[ue]; Analogia magis fauet [...] Ludicer (Etsi in eo etiam deficit, quod macer, sacer, pulcer, non praecedente vltimam syllabam litera dicuntur, id est, nondicitur pulicer vt ludicer. Reliquum igitur est, vt vsus vocis Ludicr[us?] ostendatur.
 * May it be said that the word is ludicer, or ludicrus? [...] Ludicer seems to be said, like alacer, volucer, acer, not ludicrus. But it hinders this, that the feminine of it is ludicra, not ludicris. [...]
 * c. 1619,(?) Christian Becman, Manuductio ad latinam linguam, page 469:
 * Utrum Ludicer, an ludicrus dicatur rectius quaerunt Philologi. Facilis responsio. Dicatur Ludicer, 1. ob analogiam ut macer, sacer, pulcher: ita Ludicer. 2. quia nullum praeterea adjectivum exit in Crus. 3. Itaque illa [...] mendosa; cum secundum analogiam Ludicrus dici ajunt, sicut lubricus, tetricus: haec quippe in Cus definunt. 4. Eruditi malunt Ludicer [...]

RFV discussion: October 2021–April 2022
For the nom. sg. m. lūdicer/lūdicrus and not for the whole term itself. Compare: --Myrelia (talk) 20:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * L&S: "lūdĭcer or lūdī^crus (nom. sing. m. is not used)"
 * Gaffiot: "lūdĭcĕr (-crus), cra, crum [...] ludicer inusité; ludicrus Gloss. Phil." [where?]
 * Georges: "*lūdicer od. *lūdicrus, cra, crum"


 * It is known that neither of these forms is attested, so what is the point in asking for verification? --Lambiam 09:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I have marked them in the declination tables as unattested. Does that resolve the issue? --Lambiam 10:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)


 * We put an attested lexeme at its lemma form, even if that is not itself one of the attested forms, if we know what the form must be. If it weren't clear whether the lemma was ludicer or ludicrus that'd complicate things, but many authorities list both so we'd probably be safe doing likewise, with a usage note about which forms are un/attested like in ops (Talk:ops). However, I've actually cited ludicer (uses start in 1651) and ludicrus (uses start in 1610) (though some may mean "ludicrous", not "sportive"), so we can actually drop the asterisks and just put a usage note that it's not clear whether the masculine nominative singular would've been ludicer or ludicrus in Roman times because it's not attested in the masculine nominative singular until New Latin. - -sche (discuss) 05:05, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * FWIW, although my searches have not been exhaustive, there seem to be more uses of ludicrus than ludicer. - -sche (discuss) 15:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

RFV-resolved This, that and the other (talk) 03:19, 22 April 2022 (UTC)