Talk:synaeresis

RFV discussion: December 2016–May 2018
RFV for some of the declined forms of. I know for sure that the dative plural is unattested, I'll be very surprised if the vocatives exist, and I have my doubts about the isomorphic genitive singular and the dative singular. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * We don't normally do RFVs for specific inflected forms, do we? I thought we accepted terms if any form was attested, and in the lemma form if it's unambiguous. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * We don't afaik -- not for Latin anyway. Don't really see why these should be RFV'd. (though I don't doubt that the vocative plural of synaeresis is unattested) — Kleio (t · c) 19:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it depends on the language. We only have entries for attested inflections in Gothic, though we do include unattested inflections in inflection tables. —CodeCat 20:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * As I've argued before, inflected forms should always be subject to attestation requirements, though with a presumption in favour of inclusion unless challenged (that is, it's perfectly fine to bot-create entries for all such non-lemmata, but if they're challenged, they still need to be cited). See synaeresis for the way I've handled the unattested and probably-unattested forms of this lexeme (which is probably similar in effect to what CodeCat et al. envision for Gothic). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * As User:-sche, User:Ruakh, I, and others have argued before, we should include inflected forms even when unattested (unless there is some reason to think they don't exist, such as the possibility of a verb being intransitive or a noun being uncountable). See Talk:dulcamini for a past discussion. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link to that discussion, and I'm sorry I neglected to contribute further to it at the time. From further reading, I note discussions from October 2011–June 2012, June 2012, November 2013, and the aforementioned one from September 2015–February 2016. The points raised make me a little less confident in my general position. In the specific case of, however, I think its declension is sufficiently uncertain as to warrant RFVing particular forms (per Ruakh in this post); why might the dative singular not be or the dative plural not be ? And which vocative singular should we list,  or ? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 06:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Compare the way, , , , and decline. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I see. If I understand correctly, then, the concern is that the challenged forms can't be confidently predicted from the attested forms. In that case, I think RFV is appropriate. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is my lingering concern. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 04:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * But some of them can. If the ablative plural is attested, there's really nothing else the dative plural could be. Likewise if the nominative plural  is attested, there's really nothing else the vocative plural could be, however unlikely it is that one would be addressing two or more synaereses. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Dative and ablative plurals nearly always match, but they very occasionally differ in Greek borrowings (presumably because Ancient Greek has the dative case, but not the ablative case), so the dative plural could be or something. I accept your point with regard to the vocative plural, however. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * When dative and ablative plural differ, then it's most likely just a matter of attestation, and not a matter of any dative-ablative difference. Sometimes just a dative in -sin is attested, sometimes just an ablative, sometimes both. Examples (according to dictionaries, not according to grammar books which might include invented forms): Adryas has dative plural Adryasin, herois has dative heroisin, ethos has ablative ethesin, schema has dative and ablative schemasin. -Ko·mine (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually, I have seen dative–ablative differences in the plural, but only in New Latin texts; I am inclined to believe that Classical scriptores would adopt a Greek dative as a Latin dative and ablative (in both the singular and the plural), whereas some Modern authors would adopt a Greek dative as a Latin dative only — believing that since Greek has no ablative it can supply no ablative — and that this is hypercorrection. There are more of these Greek-type dative and ablative plurals beside, , , and ; examples include ,  ,  ,  , and probably many others. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 01:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


 * It has been my position that inflected forms should be subject to attestation, but I have not seen consensus on this. Unattested inflected forms could carry the label "hypothetical" or "unattested" and be kept if that would be the preference. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd personally favour a small disclaimer indicating that the form is predicted to exist, but has not yet been verified. Either way it seems obvious to me that the inflected forms should stay, even when not manually cited or otherwise verified yet. Many people use Wiktionary to quickly look up how a given form could be analyzed; for 99.9% of Latin words which follow very predictable inflections, it's an excellent resource in that regard, on par with something like Perseus. It'd be a great and needless loss to get rid of all those non-lemma entries by unleashing CFI on them all. — Kleio (t · c) 16:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * This seems to have been resolved. All the forms either seem to be expected, or no longer have a sense line and have been (somewhat nonstandardly) marked with an asterisk in the inflection table (or both!). Resolved, IMO. - -sche (discuss) 00:07, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

synaeresis (genitive)
RFV for the isomorphic genitive singular form of. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

(C. Augustus Lobeck, 1862) has "[...], quod Plutarchus in [src.] pro specimine synaeresis affert, [...]" which might have the gen. in -is as "[...], which Plutarchus gives in [src.] as an example of synaeresis, [...]". -84.161.20.186 03:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems to no longer have a sense-line in the entry, and has been (somewhat nonstandardly) asterisked in the inflection table, which seems to resolve this. - -sche (discuss) 00:07, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not asterisked in the table but completely removed out of the entry (now only "genitive synaereseōs"). Maybe it could or even should be added into the inflection table with asterisk? For other i-stems from Greek, dictionaries give gen. -is and/or -eos (though it's probably not always attested, making the given genitive somewhat arbitrary). If there is any i-stem from Greek with gen. -is, it's plausible that synaeresis might have gen. synaeresis too.

synaeresis (vocative)
RFV for the isomorphic vocative singular form of. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Seems to no longer have a sense-line in the entry, and has been (somewhat nonstandardly) asterisked in the inflection table, which seems to resolve this. - -sche (discuss) 00:07, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, inflected forms which are identical in form to the nominative, often don't have an entry or sense. So there maybe never was an entry/sense for this vocative, but only a mentioning in the inflection section (where it now is asterisked). -84.161.20.186 03:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

synaeresī (dative)
RFV for the dative singular form of. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * There seems to be no reason to doubt this, if it would be expected from both the Greek etymon's dative and the apparently-attested ablative. - -sche (discuss) 00:07, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

synaeresi (vocative)
RFV for the Greek-type vocative singular form of. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Seems to no longer have a sense-line in the entry, and has been (somewhat nonstandardly) asterisked in the inflection table, which seems to resolve this. - -sche (discuss) 00:07, 6 May 2018 (UTC)