Disputatio:Cyrene

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Nomen[fontem recensere]

Credo Cyrenae formam rariorem esse, Cyraenae erroneam, Cyrene normalem. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:13, 16 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

Andrea, in casibus obliquis formae plurales (Cyrenarum, Cyrenas, Cyrenis) plerumque valent, sed cum nominativo opus est, Cyrene scribitur. Ergo Catullus solita (et solida) forma utitur. Neander 22:21, 16 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
Exempli gratia: Cyrenas (Plaut.Rud. 33 & 41; Liv. 23,10,11; Monumentum Ancyranum 5,32; Sall.hist. frg. 2,43; Cyrenarum (Plin. nat. 19,41); etc. Neander 22:47, 16 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
I have my doubts about Cyrene. If it were Cyrene, what declension would it be? Cyrene, Cyrenis? Because most of the forms I've seen are all first declension, usually plural Cyr[a]enae, Cyr[a]enarum, Cyr[a]enas, etc. And I think Catullus is a very reliable source, is he not? GiovaneScuola2006 23:26, 16 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
Cyrene -es is listed in Lewis and Short (along with the alternative Cyrenae -arum). It's a first declension of Greek form. There are quite a few of these among proper names of Greek origin.
And, yes, Catullus is an excellent source! One of my favourites. And he definitely deserves not to be ignored. But sometimes poets choose less-common forms of words. That's why Mela and Pliny (who were writing geographical encyclopaedias) deserve at least as much weight as Catullus. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:11, 17 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
Apud antiquos nomen de quo ambigimus hoc modo plerumque declinatur: Cyrene, Cyrenas, Cyrenarum, Cyrenis, Cyrenis (quamquam ratio formam nominativi Cyrenae postulat, usus cottidianus mavult formam e Graeca mutuatam Cyrene). Quisquis uno in conspectu formas huius nominis videre velit, consultet Thesaurum linguae Latinae / Onomasticon: litt. C, Lipsiae, in aedibus Teubneri. Neander 01:20, 17 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
Gratias ago, Neander. Ego autem, sub impossibilitate aut thesauri legendi aut itineris ad Lipsiam faciendi, apud Lewis & Short duas formas nominis invenio, Cyrene -es, Cyrenae -arum. Credo eam rem duas interpretationes accipere, quia si singulam (et solidam) formam hic habemus, irregularem esse confitemini; sed si mecum recipis Cyrene -es et Cyrenae -arum, omne regularissimum est! Igitur, nescio ... sed sic ad ideale omnes appropinquamus. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:51, 17 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
Cum Neandro omnino consentio. In Thesauro Linguae Latinae (inventorium in computatro omnia scripta Latina antiqua continens) has formas inveni: Cyrene (nom.), Cyrenarum (gen.), Cyrenas (acc.), Cyrenis (abl.). Apud Silium Italicum etiam accusativus Cyrenen invenitur. Dativum nusquam vidi. --Fabullus 10:49, 17 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
Igitur duas declinationes imperfectas habemus: (1) Cyrene (nom.) et Cyrenen (accus.); etiam (2) Cyrenarum (gen.), Cyrenas (acc.), Cyrenis (abl.). Quomodo possis cum Neandro consentire, miror!
Sed id quod mihi certum videtur, et fortasse et alii consentiunt, hoc est: formam Cyrenae, quam GS2006 selegit, dubiosissimam esse. Debemus movere ad Cyrene. Possum id facere? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:29, 17 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

Sane, per me licet. --Fabullus 11:44, 17 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

Item per me. Commentariolus: Quidam linguistae differentiam faciunt inter systema et usum. Certissime systemati linguae ("la langue") duae declinationes sunt. Sin autem respicimus, quibus formis scriptores antiqui faverint usique sint, evenit, ut paradigma habeamus, quod supra exposui. Neander 17:35, 17 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. Ut semper, Neander, cibum cogitationis praebes! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:44, 17 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

Links to Victionarium[fontem recensere]

GS, yesterday you put in a link to wikt:Cyrenae. I tested it, found it didn't lead to anything, and took it out. Now you've put it back again and added one to wikt:Cyrene. That doesn't work either (at least, not for me)! What is the point of these dead links? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:36, 17 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

Mea culpa, I thought I was doing something correct! Sorry. GiovaneScuola2006 12:00, 17 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, GS! I have explained what I meant on your talk page :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:14, 17 Augusti 2007 (UTC)