Talk:venus

Latin etymology
Apparently German (and some American) dictionaries have a different etymology than the one used so far. JohnC5 reverted my additions without any discussion. I find this not acceptable.Otto S. Knottnerus (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Your additions are based on:
 * Pokorny, who is exceedingly out of date and fraught with errors
 * W&H, who don't agree with your etymology
 * Watkins, whose reconstructions tend to be overly simplified and often out of line with the rest of the field.
 * More importantly, you've conflated the theonym and the noun, which are unrelated. Finally, your additions contain multiple formatting and template errors (like ). I'm sorry if you feel you were being ignored, but in the face of this avalanche of incorrect information, I reverted it.  — JohnC5 18:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I wasn't aware this was not the page of the theonym. Sorry, this was stupid. As far as Pokorny is concerned: old and new are haunting the internet as well as wiktionary. Moreover, there are diverting national traditions. So if an etymology has been revised in the last decades, it might be advisable to be more specific on this so that scholars (and others) outside the specialized field of linguistics won't be mislead by their dictionaries.Otto S. Knottnerus (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * We list Pokorny often on Wiktionary because it is so old an venerable, but he wrote his dictionary even before laryngeal theory was fully accepted. He is also, like Watkins, inclusionistic to a fault. We do mention De Vaan's dictionary (though it is not referenced directly to the etymology), which is considered the most up to date dictionary of Italic reconstruction. — JohnC5 18:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, John, I will look for De Vaar, where I need it. It's a pity it is only available on paper, at least according to by library catalogue.Otto S. Knottnerus (talk) 19:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe it is available at BrillOnline: ; I do not know if you have already checked into whether your library has access. Isomorphyc (talk) 16:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

RFV discussion: October 2019
For the gender. By the forms (dat. venui, veno, acc. venum) it could be masculine or neuter like L&S notes. I'd guess, Georges' gender is based on cognates like, and not by attestation. If the gender is not properly attested, there should at least be a note like "gender is not attested; masculine gender is assumed based on ". --Marontyan (talk) 02:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There are very few neuter nouns in the fourth declension, and they do not end in -um in the nominative/accusative (compare genu and cornu). So if the form venui is viewed as belonging to a paradigm that includes the accusative form venum (which seems the most likely situation, since *venu is apparently not attested), it would imply the masculine gender. The alternative second-declension paradigm implied by the other dative form veno is equally consistent with masculine and neuter gender, as far as I know.--Urszag (talk) 02:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah right, my bad. --Marontyan (talk) 03:05, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

RFV discussion: October 2019-July 2021
According to dictionaries it isn't attested: Hence it's, or (defective). --Marontyan (talk) 02:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * L&S: "vēnus, ūs, m., or vēnum (vaen-), i, n. (occurring only in the forms venui, veno, and venum) [...]"
 * Georges: "vēnus, ūs u. ī, m. [...] nur im Dat. u. Acc. vorkommend [...]"
 * The Oxford Latin Dictionary says it's documented only in the accusative and dative, but venus is still the lemma form used in that source. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * How do you like the current arrangement? I'm inclined to make it into a template. Brutal Russian (talk) 22:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Is it attested in later sources? The OLD only covers Classical Latin, but if the lemma form occurs in later sources (Vulgar or Medieval Latin), then it would still be attested as Latin.  Has anyone checked later sources? --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * DMLBS, Blaise, Niermeyer don't mention any other uses, and I seriously doubt it has ever occurred to anybody to invent new forms for what is more or less a bound stem with a preserved ending (with an ending-less variant in ). Brutal Russian (talk) 03:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Resolved by an including only a reference to the accusative form and a note that the nominative does not exist. Fay Freak (talk) 14:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

—Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 00:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)