Disputatio:Clepsydra (horologium)
"-ae"[fontem recensere]
Donatello, thinking back to the previous discussion, I think this is a good case where adding the genitive form really isn't necessary. Clepsydra is a regular first-declension noun, just like mensa, amica, rosa, etc., which every student of Latin learns how to decline in the first few weeks of instruction. The same goes for 2nd-declension nouns in -us (servus, hortus, etc.). I do think it's useful to indicate irregular or unusual forms, but is there a particular reason you think people would be confused about clepsydra? Of course in the greater scheme of things it doesn't matter too much, and a lot of our articles do include obvious grammatical information. Nonetheless, the consensus in the Taberna seemed to be that it wasn't necessary. Lesgles (disputatio) 00:18, 16 Novembris 2013 (UTC)
- Greetings Lesgles. Yes, I remember that discussion and I do agree with it. :) I was thinking that clepsydra is a word people aren't so sure how to decline. But if you are sure that it's an easy word to know, like mensa, amica, rosa, etc, then it should be removed. -- Donatello (disputatio) 12:47, 16 Novembris 2013 (UTC).
- Well, perhaps its Greek origin will cause some people to hesitate. It's not a big problem for me, so I think it's fine to leave it. Lesgles (disputatio) 18:12, 16 Novembris 2013 (UTC)
- Okey. :) -- Donatello (disputatio) 12:34, 17 Novembris 2013 (UTC).
- Well, perhaps its Greek origin will cause some people to hesitate. It's not a big problem for me, so I think it's fine to leave it. Lesgles (disputatio) 18:12, 16 Novembris 2013 (UTC)