Talk:odeo

RFV discussion: August 2019–June 2022
@Lambiam Claimed to be an alternative form of ; conjugated like. Is it real? Benwing2 (talk) 16:56, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Also . Benwing2 (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * @Benwing2 I don't remember seeing anything like that the last time I researched the various forms of the former verb, or ever. The closest thing to other one seems to be this medieval macaronic form (also see podibat in the end of the article). Brutal Russian (talk) 12:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * @Brutal Russian Thanks. I will delete . As for, this is supposed to be a variant of rather than . BTW when you say "medieval macaronic form" are you referring to spellings like "aucturetate" (like in the podibat article you cited) for "auctoritate"? What happens if someone wants to add a spelling like this to Wiktionary? My instinct is not to include them, otherwise the categories could be overwhelmed with such variant spellings. I asked the same question earlier with regards to , a macaronic spelling of . For that entry, someone actually created a full paradigm escaiō, escaīre with a Classical pronunciation, which seems very bogus. Benwing2 (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * @Benwing2 Yeah, it is indeed a different verb. Aucturetate is an actual Late Latin/Medieval spelling, this type of vowel confusion is absolutely ubiquotous in Gallia after the 4th century (basically random chance error rate) as well as elsewhere a bit later. Podibat on the other hand is precisely the same macaronic type as and, a Romance form minimally adapted to Latin morphology. I did see your question, and it's more or less the same one I had asked in the above-mentioned discussion - it seems like people generally feel the same way, but can't quite decide to do something about it. In my opinion before we decide what to do with these forms, we should sort out what are actual (ante-/post-)Classical alternative forms that currently reside under Category:Latin_misspellings, as well as the one macaronic form there, and then also sort out the whole Vulgar Latin thing, which for the time being I'm not sure what it's supposed to represent exactly - seems like a general dump for anything non-standard regardless of period, style and attestation. Where would be the best place to ask what's the working definition of Vulgar Latin on this website, and why this notoriously undefinable and largely rejected term has been chosen? Brutal Russian (talk) 16:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * @Brutal Russian I think the best place to ask about Vulgar Latin would be the beer parlor. Benwing2 (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * @Brutal Russian For me “Vulgar Latin” is about style, register. It is also the same question whether a term is literary Arabic or dialectal. I as others have also spoken of “Vulgar Turkish” in reference to the diglossia of the Ottoman Empire. Many terms for one idea. This works everywhere where one writes significantly differently from how one speaks on the basis of a tradition.
 * Another question is why we have duplicates like “Vulgar Latin” Reconstruction:Latin/werra together with 🇨🇬. That’s a bloody joke, it’s the same word, I opt for deleting it. It’s not even that the Latin is reborrowed from Romance in this case, but even in such a case I tend to believe that the duplication should be refused. Fay Freak (talk) 16:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, see, your attempt to define it already highlights the problem to me, seeing as it combines references to style and register - aspects of one language -, as well as to diglossia - which is quite the opposite! Moreover, modern scholarship expressly rejects the notion of Latin diglossia, while a separate phonology and dedicated inflection templates for a certain style or register of the same language is something I've yet to see a precedent for, anywhere! To quote one of the best books to read on the topic, Social Variation and the Latin Language by J. N. Adams:
 * "Many have tried to give Vulgar Latin a precise meaning {...}, but it has continued to generate confusion. Lloyd (1979) identiﬁed thirteen meanings that have been assigned to the term (no doubt many others could be found: see Poccetti, Poli and Santini 2005: 25) {...} In recent decades the inadequacy of ‘Vulgar Latin’ has been increasingly felt with the advance of sociolinguistics as a discipline. Analyses of social variations across well-deﬁned social or occupational groups in modern speech communities are bound to show up traditional concepts of Vulgar Latin, however the phrase might be deﬁned, as hopelessly vague."
 * The word you're referring to seems to show that two different people had two different ideas about what constitutes Vulgar Latin, both of them probably likewise "hopelessly vague" :) Brutal Russian (talk) 17:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What's the status on podeō? I can't find anything. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * odeō
 * podeō ???
 * This has been sitting here long enough. podeō RFV-deleted. Thadh (talk) 21:20, 15 June 2022 (UTC)


 * We still have oditurus as a derived form of odeo, but unlike odeo, oditurus seems to be attested. What do [we do]? . - -sche (discuss) 22:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @-sche what do you think ? This, that and the other (talk) 08:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Your changes defining it as a form of ōdiō rather than odeō seem to resolve the issue; thanks! :) - -sche (discuss) 01:10, 29 June 2022 (UTC)