Disputatio:Animalium soni

Montivage, hi soni verbatim transcripsi ex codice Vaticano. Quippe crotUlare miratus sum etiam, at hoc modo codex dicit. Si vis plures addere, certe licet, at quaeso noli mutare contenta citata.--Ioscius ^(disp) 12:10, 12 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

Salve Ioshe. I didn't realize I was stumbling into another minefield! I should be more careful, especially considering Geta's fate (as noted on the page, he too expressed interest in animal sounds). My only two sources for 'crotolare' were the OLD and the usage you had appeared to sanction on the ciconia page. The inconsistency had been bugging me (not that one should demand precision from onomatopoeia!) Note that I also changed the hawk's cry to 'plipiare', with an l, again acc. to OLD, and to differentiate from the well-known sparrow in Catullus. Any idea why 'rana' and 'serpens' are listed under 'mammalium'? Or why the page has 'lupes' instead of OLD-attested 'lupi'? Or 'sorix' for 'sorex', 'pardo' for 'pardus', 'merulus' for 'merula'? And what kind of bird is a 'galvus' anyway? Why is 'bubonis' the one name in the genitive? If these readings (which are no doubt very interesting!) are the artifacts of one MS, perhaps a box around them (i.e. around the whole section) would help say 'hands off!'. With other attestations outside the MS mixed into the list, that message isn't very clear, despite the footnote. This is a really great page, in part because it made me look up so many words. But when I found so many discrepancies, the urge to change was irresistible. Or maybe I just need a better dictionary. (Ben) Montivagus 14:43, 12 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes... I can explain some things:

Rana and serpens are under mammalium simply because the overwhelming majority of the non bird non insect animals listed in the codex I found were mammals, and I was just careless in putting frog and snake in. This should be changed immediately.

Bubo, again, my carelessness. I copy/pasted from an earlier version of the article, in which the genitive made sense. I probably said "carmen bubonis est blah blah blah" and forgot to nominativize when I pasted.

Unfortunately I can explain nothing about sorex, pardo, merulus, or galvus, or lupes for that matter. I merely copied verbatim from the codex. Can you access the JSTOR article? Do you have access to a proxy? If not you can log on as a guest through Maryland's Research Port at http://www.lib.umd.edu. The only thing I can surmise is that it is, as a Vatican codex, influenced by some non-classical factors (the likes of which I can only imagine). I would support changing lupes to lupi, but I wouldn't mess with the other things.

I don't think you need a better dictionary than the OLD =] I just think you have to go with the flow sometimes. You won't find "ambulatrix" in the OLD, but Cato certainly wrote it! Are we therefore to call it not a word, simply because the OLD doesn't have it? We must trust, I think, that the author of the codex knew at least a few things.

For the crotulare/crotolare-pipiare/plipiare thing, I think we can just add the terms next to the ones found in the codex and footnote them.

I need to think more about what you said about a box around the stuff from the codex...I don't love the idea of having two separate sections, one for the codex and one for the OLD. Surely footnotes are the way you solve confusing issues in an encyclopaedia, right?

Eager to hear back from you. Like you said, this page is totally cool. Whatever we decide on it should be in the interest of making this information clear and well presented. --Ioscius ^(disp) 15:18, 12 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

Now that I look, I'm thinking lupes was a typo for lupus.--Ioscius ^(disp) 15:21, 12 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

Salve iterum hodie. I wasn't trying to play the 'gotcha' game (that would surely come back to haunt me), I was just trying to make sense out of the few bits of information I had before me. I had scant acquaintance with Latin animal sounds before I saw this page, hence the beginner's pedanticism. I readily concede that every language exhibits synchronic and diachronic variations, and as you rightly point out there's no reason one book should hold them all (well, maybe Vicipaedia). In commenting on the 'egestas' of the OLD I was actually thinking about the big Lewis and Short dictionary, which I don't have here with me. I've heard from a participant at the Reginald Foster summer school that he (Foster) prefers this dictionary because it has later usages that OLD lacks. Anyway my curiosity is officially piqued, and while I think the info is basically clear and well-presented as it is, there must be some way to remove the small number of mental question marks that seem to persist. It looks like a fun challenge. I'll check out the JSTOR via my univ.; thanks for pointing it out. Ben. Montivagus 15:54, 12 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think you were trying to one-up or gotcha as you said. After my initial, errr, shall we say skepticism, I have become pretty convinced that you are here to help us and learn in the process. Yes, Nancy (she wrote the FAQ on Foster's summer class) told me that he prefers the L&S, and he's definitely got a point for non classical Latin. You know you can access the L&S through Perseus, right?--Ioscius ^(disp) 16:53, 12 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

1st or 2nd principal part

? --Ioscius ^(disp) 02:34, 23 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

¿Qué pasó?

I was about to add Havaiane ‘o‘ō and Protopolynesie *kokoo. IacobusAmor 03:03, 23 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a source for any of that. I just copied it from en, I think. And they have no source, either. Useless, therefore.--Ioscius ^(disp) 14:29, 23 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

Well, ahem. I am a source: I've heard Samoan cocks crowing, and I've heard Samoans using the word for that crowing, and I've got tape recordings of songs in which that word occurs. Or if you like, Milner's dictionary (1966) has the Samoan term, and Pukui & Elbert's (1975) has the Hawaiian and Proto-Polynesian; or for the PPN and numerous other Polynesian variants, you could email the custodian of the current PPN wordlist, an electronic file maintained at Auckland University. Harrumph. IacobusAmor 15:19, 23 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

Yes yes, those are the sources I would like. No offense, Iacobe, I trust you =] --Ioscius ^(disp) 15:37, 23 Augusti 2007 (UTC)