Talk:tlatus

RFV discussion: March 2015
Old Latin which appears to be unattested. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 18:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * If I recall correctly, this form is mentioned in Wheelock's Latin, but I don't know whether they give it as an unattested reconstruction or just rare and archaic, and I don't have the book handy to check. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 18:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , the and Sihler's New Comparative Grammar all treat the forms starting with tlat- as unattested reconstructions. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * But stlatus is attested in epigraphy, right? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 19:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know; I only looked up the past participle of, not the word for "wide". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * [//www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=sterno&highlight=stlatus Perseus'] copy of Lewis and Short has "sterno, strāvi, strātum, 3 cf.: strages, struo, torus, and lātus, adj., old Lat. stlatus, to spread out, spread abroad; to stretch out, extend". Wallace Martin Lindsay's Short Historical Latin Grammar marks tlatus with an asterisk as a reconstruction, but does not so mark stlatus; it says the derived term stlattarius was used by Juvenal. - -sche (discuss) 21:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Then it's probably fine. I wanted to check because it was also created by this user who flooded us with unattested entries that I speedied en masse. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 03:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We now treat Old Latin as its own language, owing to the significant differences between classical and pre-classical Latin. Is this attested in Latin or Old Latin? —CodeCat 03:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)