User talk:Flamen pluvialis

Creating new entries: edit summary
Hi. Better to leave the edit summary blank for new entries: it gets auto-filled with a snippet, more helpful. Equinox ◑ 23:36, 30 July 2023 (UTC)


 * You are right. Will do. Flamen pluvialis (talk) 23:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

efflictim
Hi there. Why remove the mention of the PPP from the etymology? It's not strictly necessary from the standpoint of a Latin expert, but it helps those without a deep understanding of Latin understand where the -ct- comes from in this instance. We should try and avoid making our coverage of Latin an "ivory tower" meaningful to experts only. This, that and the other (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I understand your view. I just want to avoid stating things that are wrong from a scientific standpoint. And if you look at the other lemmata that contain the -tim-suffix you will note that most of do without mention of the PPP, thus, leaving it here would be sort of an inconsistency. Flamen pluvialis (talk) 01:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you tell me more about what you mean by "wrong from a scientific standpoint"? This, that and the other (talk) 02:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If I compose "efflīctus" and "-tim" the way we usually do it here, the result is not efflīctim, but *efflīxim or maybe *efflīctitim, both of which do not exist.
 * The PPP was not involved in the formation of efflīctim, rather they happen to share the same stem minus their actual stem vowel (PPP o, -ti-Derivation i). If you wanted to derive efflīctim from efflīctus as, let's say, a variant of *efflīctē, you would have to put -im as the suffix, not -tim. Flamen pluvialis (talk) 04:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)