Talk:manuculus

Latin : Attested or not?
Latin. Latin  is marked as "Vulgar Latin", and many sources put a star by it indicating it's reconstructed. Can we attest it? Benwing2 (talk) 06:18, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Often stars are put wrongly or after obsolete or uninformed sources. With references and several variants and even several derivatives mentioned by Wilhelm Heraeus Die Sprache des Petronius und die Glossen p. 45 bottom. I note and link here the earlier form maniculus in Apuleius book 9. The Thesaurus linguae latinae has manuculus too. Fay Freak (talk) 11:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


 * —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 09:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There still are 0 quotes. --Myrelia (talk) 11:12, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

On second thought, this should have a star, as it isn't directly attested, but emended from mamaculus in an ancient glossary and it can be inferred from. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 02:06, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * On the one hand, it's not really attested and only a correction.
 * On the other hand, there are similar issues with:
 * 1) manuscripts and editions – editions can contain corrections as well (compare e.g. );
 * 2) ancient inscriptions – often people have to guess about word divisions, spellings and meanings (see e.g., ).
 * So I guess all three is possible: Have, or  - of course, with label, explanation and source (Heraeus mentioning a gloss). --Myrelia (talk) 12:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

RFV-passed, the tag was already removed some time ago and no objections have been raised to following the FEW in leaving it unstarred with the evidence available. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)