Talk:vire

RFV discussion: May 2017–February 2018
Latin: vocative singular of. Really? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

BTW into the template this voc. form was added in without any reference or explanation. In it was moved from the note into the table. Luckily, someone later moved it back into a note. -84.161.7.226 21:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's likely not just a matter of vir, but a matter of Wiktionary's templates, in this case of Template:la-decl-2nd-er. According to dictionaries, there is the vocative puere from which one might derive a voative in -e for such terms -- but there is also the nominative puerus to which this vocative belongs. L&S only has "old voc. puere", but Gaffiot has "arch. puerus Prisc. 6, 41 || voc. puere Caecil. Com. 100" and Georges has "Archaist. Nomin. puerus, Augustin. serm. 57, 6 Mai; vgl. Prisc. 6, 42: Vokat. puere, Caecil. com. 100. Afran. com. 193. Plaut. asin. 382 u.a.". Maybe some users or grammars did derive this voc. -e from puere like it's mentioned in L&S without puerus. In ML and maybe in (British) NL this voc. -e might occur more often, but then it should be marked and then it should only be added if attested (like it's done with the verb form in -ier by the parameter "|p3inf=1" which gives this text: "The present passive infinitive in -ier is a rare poetic form which is attested for this verb."). According to common grammars, the voc. of such terms like puer and vir only is the same as the nom.


 * Deleted, apparently an error caused by the template and then bots(?) creating forms from the template. - -sche (discuss) 18:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)