Talk:magnissimus

magnissimus
Wouldn't it be Latin and isn't the superlative form maximus? - 23:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it's not Latin (although it's formed correctly according to normal rules), because (as you've noted) the superlative of is .  It's irregular.  Saying "magnissimus" is childish, like saying "bestest", and it's therefore unlikely to ever be attested in surviving Latin documents. --EncycloPetey 23:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... I'm getting some disturbing hits for this word. Most seem to be modern web postings in Latin, but one  appears to be about the grammarian Virgilius Maro.  The author of the article suggests that some of the words used by this grammarian were fanciful creations, but he does seem to have used this word as an alternative to maximus:.  Perhaps we should keep the entry and mark it with usage notes. --EncycloPetey 23:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I wonder about things like this that might come from post-Classical Latin. Most readily accessible Latin dictionaries don't really cover Vulgar, Medieval, Renaissance, Ecclesiastical, New, and Modern Latin. We're lucky if Late Latin is covered. What resources are available for these? DCDuring TALK 04:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There are lots. There is a MASSIVE multivolume Vulgar Latin dictionary that I sadly do not own or have easy access to (It's an hour away by car, plus a hike uphill to the library).  On my bookshelf, I have Sidwells' Reading Medieval Latin and Souter's Glossary of Later Latin, both of which should still be in print and also available cheap as secondhand copies.  I have Calepinus' Dictionary of Latin (not cheap or easy to find) as well as the Facciolati Lexicon, which was considered the standard before Lewis & Short.  Unfortunately, Lewis & Short limited their work to Classical vocabulary.  Feyerabend includes some common post-Classical terms, and a small pocket-sized edition of that was published by Langenscheidt for about $10.  I also have various volumes that include additional specialized bits. --EncycloPetey 05:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, Stearn's Botanical Latin is very useful for certain kinds of post-Classical Latin as well. --EncycloPetey 05:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * At least I've got Stearns. I don't have access to Fordham library anymore (world class on Ecclesiastical, Medieval), but the NYPL Ref Library is adequate on some subjects. Unfortunately, everything is a shlep. I'm looking to pick up some cheap volumes. I keep on hoping for some good on-line sources for the post-classical periods. DCDuring TALK 11:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You guys made my Pocket Oxford Latin Dictionary feel inferior, it is now hiding under my desk and refuses to come out "'cause those older dictionaries will make fun of it" :( - 19:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It shouldn't feel bad. I use my Oxford Desk Dictionary quite often to check current opinion about principal parts of verbs, placement of macrons, and pronunciation.  Because documents are being discovered all the time, recent research sometimes includes forms that were unknown to earlier scholars. --EncycloPetey 15:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)