Disputatio:Puer mirabilis

Acc. pl.: classis--->classes[fontem recensere]

Both are grammatical, but "The proper ending of the Acc. Pl., -īs (archaic, -eīs), is found frequently in the classical period along with the later termination -ēs, which suppants -īs wholly in the early empire" (Gildersleeve 57.5). Similarly, the ablative of clāssis in -ī (as opposed to -e) is "found . . . not unfrequently" (57.2). IacobusAmor 13:12, 20 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're more knowledgible on this. I'm just following the entry for 'classify' in the mini Oxford Latin dictionary. --Jondel 10:38, 21 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{Movenda|Puer prodigius}}[fontem recensere]

Prodigium puerile aut Puer prodigius?--Xave ri us 10:32, 5 Novembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mihi videtur Puer prodigius melius.Jondel (disputatio) 10:54, 5 Novembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait a bit before moving this, in case anyone has any objections.--Xave ri us 12:19, 5 Novembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{Movenda|Puer mirabilis}}[fontem recensere]

Notice that Latin prodigium has most of the time a negative tone in it: 'something unnatural'. There's no such adjective as "prodigius". The adjective corresponding to prodigium is prodigiosus, but it's generally not used of human beings (except for gods), only of phenomena and other thingies. Both Reijo Pitkäranta, Lexicon Finnico-Latino-Finnicum (Helsinki: WSOY, 2001) and Ebbe Vilborg, Norstedts svensk-latinska ordbok. Andra upplagan. (Norstedts akademiska förlag, Stockholm, 2009) provide puer/puella mirabilis. Cum fontes habeamus, opus non est fingendo. Neander (disputatio) 16:48, 5 Novembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]