Disputatio:Deminutivum Latinum

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Ah! Didn't know you'd started this. Here's my summary, feel free to annotate or contradict:

  • Diminutives are almost always the same gender as the simplex noun (but we will be defaulting to masculine throughout here).
    • Exceptions are rare, e.g. conventus > conventiculum
  • First or second declension defaults to -ulus
    • If stem ends with -i- then suffix becomes -olus
    • If the stem ends with l (ocellus), n (femella) or r (castellum), then the suffix often coalesces with the stem to form -ellus
  • Third declension defaults to -iculus, but there are many special rules for different subtypes:
    • Nouns of the form -o -onis form diminutives in -unculus
    • S-stems, even where the s has shifted to r in all other forms, form diminutives in -usculus (e.g. arbor > arbusculus--keep in mind archaic Latin arbos.)
  • I think fourth and fifth declensions use -(i)culus forms as well, but I can't think of any examples offhand (other than conventus above).
The -iculus -a -um can be attached to first- and second-declension words, too:
- al-icula, from ala
- macr-iculus (adi.), from macer -- Diaphanus 23:15, 24 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
Here are some other examples: nigriculus (niger), anniculus (annus), thyrsiculus (thyrsus), montaniculus (montanus), pugnicula (pugna), faeniculum (faenum), galericulum (galerum). -- Diaphanus 00:42, 25 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
You are right about ala - alicula and galerus (m.!) - galericulum (n.). However, your other examples I find less convincing:
  • thyrsiculus, montaniculus, pugniculus are not in the TLL. Where did you find them?
  • anniculus is not the diminutive of annus, but an adjective meaning 'one year old'.
  • feniculum is not the diminutive of fenum 'hay', but a separate word meaning 'fennel'.
  • of macriculus and nigriculus I have found only one instance. Varro (De Lingua Latina 8.79) writes: 'Magnitudinis vocabula cum possint esse terna, ut cista cistula cistella, †in mediis† [probably a scribe's error for 'in aliis media'] non sunt, ut in his: macer macricolus macellus, niger nigricolus nigellus.' Varro's point seems to be that, while in some cases between the 'normal word' and the form ending in -ellus/a/um there is also a medial form in -ulus/a/um, in other cases - as with niger and macer - there is not; macriculus and nigriculus are only imaginary forms made up by Varro to show what the missing forms would have looked like if they had existed.--Fabullus 10:54, 27 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
All right, feniculum/faeniculum and anniculus were just my errors. (I did not check the etymology of anniculus. In fact, I was under the impression that it was a diminutive form being used as an adjective. It turns out that montaniculus is also an adjective.) Varro might have formed macriculus and nigriculus, but is that enough to ignore them here? Here are the places where I found the two other words: thyrsiculus, pugnicula. -- Diaphanus 22:11, 27 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the information! I will add thyrsiculus, montaniculus and pugnicula to the table of excepta. --Fabullus 09:32, 28 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
You're right, Iustine, witness recula and diecula. --Neander 03:21, 1 Septembris 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Recula is utterly new to me, but diecula was the example rattling in the back of my brain. I was too lazy to actually look it up though! Anyway, this is pretty cool: we can assemble a pretty complete list of rules here. --Iustinus 03:41, 1 Septembris 2007 (UTC)
I found some exceptions:
- rescula, from res (from Lewis and Short)
- speicula, from spes (from Souter's Glossary of Later Latin) -- Diaphanus 22:54, 24 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
rēs-cula is an interesting alternative (used by Apuleius) for rēcula and has justly been inserted in the table by Harrissimo. About speicula I have my doubts. Could you, Diaphanus, give a more precise source? In general I don't think post-classical forms should be included unless they have been so widely used (preferably by more than one author) that they cannot be ignored, or they have acquired a very specific meaning that does not attach to the classical form. In this case I prefer the regular classical form spē-cula which our friend Harrissimo has inserted in the table. --Fabullus 11:11, 27 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
The speicula is interesting because it was J.P. Euzéby of the LPSN web site who brought it to my attention. I asked him about word formation from the words res, spes, and fides, and at one point, he gave some examples including speicula. After that I searched "speicula" and found this: "speicula, ae, f : lueur d'espoir." That site apparently got its information from another that no longer seems to exist. At any rate, I checked the speicula entry in A Glossary of Later Latin again. It does not make clear whether the "= SPECVLA" refers to specula, the diminutive of res, or specula, as in "a look-out." -- Diaphanus 22:33, 27 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
  • It is possible to form a diminutive off of a diminutive: circus > circulus > circellus > *circellulus.

--Iustinus 23:36, 31 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that they should be listed by declension? Your explanations have certainly made it much clearer for me than my haphazard table did. --Harrissimo 00:00, 1 Septembris 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me too that it would be more useful that way. But it's still your chart. --Iustinus 00:40, 1 Septembris 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and you're right about -olus. it does occur with vowels other than -i-. In Classical Latin we have forms like aculeus > aculeolus. There's the scientific Latin vacuum > vacuolum, though I don't know if there are any classical examples of this. If there are any examples with -a-, or -o-, then I have yet to find them, but then -aus -aa -aum and -ous -oa -oum are not exactly common endings in Latin, are they? Also, see Disputatio:Planetula for examples of what happens to first declension masculines. --Iustinus 02:06, 1 Septembris 2007 (UTC)

Allen and Greenough claims "-olus (after a vowel)." I don't see any clear-cut exceptions to that. There are aquula and equulus, but those probably has something to do with Allen and Greenough's comment "In the combinations qu, gu, and sometimes su, u seems to be the consonant (w). Thus, aqua, anguis, cónsuétus (compare English quart, anguish, suave). In these combinations, however, u is reckoned neither as a vowel nor as a consonant." By the way, there is also parvulus and parvolus from parvus. -- Diaphanus 23:35, 24 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
But there is Nicolaus maybe someone, sometime had a diminutive of that to say "little nick" or something like that. I guess they'd probably use Nicolalus - I've never seen an "a" and "o" together in latin before. --Harrissimo 11:43, 1 Septembris 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps Nicolaolus if "-olus (after a vowel)" is to be followed. Yes, the ao combination is not very common in native Latin words. There is extraordinarius (if vowel length is not relevant) and various names, but many words with ao are Greek-derived... -- Diaphanus 23:42, 24 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
Here's an interesting one no one's mentioned yet: trua "ladle" > trulla. --Iustinus 21:31, 21 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

-eculus[fontem recensere]

OK, can anyone explain to me molecula? I mean, by my undestanding it should be *molicula. The word is very much a renaissance invention, but those people usually knew what they were doing. --Iustinus 06:34, 1 Septembris 2007 (UTC)

Interesting:
  • vulpes~vulpis > vulpecula
  • ovis > ovicula~ovecula
  • nubes > nubēcula
  • valles > vallicula~vallecula
  • trabs~trabes > trabecula~trabicula
  • vitis > vitecula
  • vepres > veprecula
--Iustinus 06:43, 1 Septembris 2007 (UTC)
Is this taken from Moles, Molis (f.)? (little boulder) so it should follow vulpes, vulpecula. Also, I think vitis is viticula, according to Words. --Harrissimo 17:05, 3 Septembris 2007 (UTC)
Another interesting example seems to be acus (4th) becoming aculeus (like a 3rd m. like rex would do). --Harrissimo 17:07, 3 Septembris 2007 (UTC)
Do you know where "-illus" should be properly used? It seems to pop up in unexpected places in the 2nd and 3rd declensions and Bennet's grammar isn't very specific. --Harrissimo 12:34, 8 Septembris 2007 (UTC)
viticula quater invenitur in TLL (apud Ciceronem, Columellam, et bis apud Plinium Maiorem), vitecula bis (apud Plinium Minorem et in Lydia Pseudo-Vergiliana: hīc metrum corroborat formam). ovecula non inveni in TLL. *acus > aculeus est similis ac *equus > equuleus (= eculeus). Fortasse et conferre possumus *nux > nuc(u)leus --Fabullus 14:07, 8 Septembris 2007 (UTC)
But is there a pattern with these "-leus" words? At the moment -leus and -illus seem to be just thrown in here and there. It seems the diminutive is more irregular than those neat, blue tables make it seem, momento. --Harrissimo 15:38, 8 Septembris 2007 (UTC)
-illus is a double diminutive like -ellus, but I don't know what the rules are for its distribution. As for -uleus, this is a pretty fascinating bit of morphology, a pattern I had never really noticed before. It is clear that all of them have stems that end with u (vocalic or consonental), but as we see below, it does not apply to all such nouns. --Iustinus 19:24, 16 Septembris 2007 (UTC)

Videte quod Servius scripsit de diminutivo 'vallecula' (Comm. in Verg. Aen. 11.522):

VALLES metri necessitate conpellimur ut 'vallis' dicamus: Statius “vallis in amplexu nemorum sedet”: nam plenum est 'valles', sicut nunc Vergilius posuit. quod ita esse diminutio indicat: nam 'vallecula' dicitur, sicut 'turrim' dici debere 'turricula' indicat, 'vulpes' 'vulpecula' facit: Horatius “moveat vulpecula risum”. ergo in 'es' vel in 'is' quando usurpative, quando naturaliter exeant nomina, sola diminutio indicat. ea autem quae in 'es' exeunt, longa sunt omnia, si in genetivo non crescant, ut 'labes' 'valles' 'vulpes': nam si crescant, brevia sunt, ut 'miles militis'. --Fabullus 11:36, 13 Septembris 2007 (UTC)
Quod ad nomen simplex attinet, perspicuum est. Sed quid de diminutivo innuere vult? Idem, ut tu supra indcas, nempe metri esse causam? --Iustinus 19:24, 16 Septembris 2007 (UTC)

Ratio huius paginae[fontem recensere]

Si vis, Harrissimo mi, hanc paginam aliis vicipaedianis usui esse, regulae definiendae sunt, et exceptiones indicandae. Regulis nobis opus est, ut diminutiva nova facere possimus, exceptionibus ut non falsa creemus.--Fabullus 10:24, 16 Septembris 2007 (UTC)

Assentior. Harissimo, could we maybe make this page public? It could be a very useful page, and Fabullus and/or I could be very helpful, but we don't want to step on your toes. --Iustinus 19:24, 16 Septembris 2007 (UTC)
Est nunc libera omnibus. --Harrissimo 20:01, 16 Septembris 2007 (UTC)
Nonne haec quam aptissima sunt Portae Eruditionis? --Neander 21:55, 16 Septembris 2007 (UTC)
Ita, nescio num haec commentatio sit, fortasse potius auxilium, aut in spatio nominale [[vicipaedia:]]. --Iustinus 03:18, 20 Septembris 2007 (UTC)
I think that is should be kept as an article, but with a different page "Suffixum diminutivum Latinum", using a {{vide-etiam}} to the newer page from here. Since the English page only gives a brief overview of each language, things are going to be a bit excessive if we go into every nook and cranny of the diminutive on a general page about the suffix. I will be translating the page into English for the English wikibook:Latin. Harrissimo.

Declinatio quarta[fontem recensere]

Vide, Iustine, diminutiva nominum quartae declinationis quae inveni in TLL:

  • artus (m) > articulus (m)
  • cinctus (m) > cincticulus (m)
  • quaestus (m) > quaesticulus (m)
  • versus (m) > versiculus (m) [--Fabullus 20:20, 16 Septembris 2007 (UTC)]
  • cornu (n) > corniculum (n)
  • genu (n) > geniculum (n)
  • conventus (m) > conventiculum (n)
  • currus (m) > curriculum (n)
  • anus (f) > anicula (f)
  • manus (f) > manicula (f) [non, ut scriptum in pagina, 'manusculus']
  • acus (f) > acūleus (m)
  • domus (f) > domuncula sive domuscula (f)
  • lacus (m) > lacusculus (m) [--Fabullus 13:39, 6 Decembris 2007 (UTC)]

Ut supra iam coniecisti suffixum diminutivum regulare videtur esse -iculus/a/um. --Fabullus 10:24, 16 Septembris 2007 (UTC)

Macte virtute! Pleraque sunt ut suspectus sum, sed nonnulla mirror. Cur genus conventus et currus mutatur? Cur umquam -uleus? Et praeterea quidnam inferorum dici potest de "domuncula"? Mihi quidem est domus, non *domo ;) --Iustinus 19:24, 16 Septembris 2007 (UTC)
Quid dicas de rana, ranunculo; aut avus, avunculo? --Fabullus 19:39, 19 Septembris 2007 (UTC)
Recte, nonnulla esse videntur. Sed fortasse aliquibus fuerunt formae variantes ex -o.
Cum quidem de -unculis loquamur, me rogabam num essent verba -unculum ex -en -inis. --Iustinus 01:11, 20 Septembris 2007 (UTC)
Duo exempla tibi inveni:
  • pecten, -inis (m.) > pectunculus
  • sanguis (sanguen), -inis (m.) > sangunculus [hapax legomenon apud Petr. Satyr. 66.2.2]
--Fabullus 15:18, 28 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
Sed quae inveni omnino alterius generis fuerunt:
  • mendacium > mendaciunculum
  • statua > statunculum
  • tugurium > tuguriunculum
  • lagoena/lagōna > laguncula [addidi --Fabullus 15:22, 28 Octobris 2007 (UTC)]
  • ? > caprunculum
Mirabiliter omnia sunt Iae aut IIae declinationis.
--Iustinus 01:11, 20 Septembris 2007 (UTC)
De hac re heri mirabor unde musca => Italice moschetta, tamen Hispanice mosquito...--Ioscius (disp) 17:18, 20 Septembris 2007 (UTC)
Carduus > cardunculus (Latinitate scientifica) --Iustinus 18:23, 16 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
Sed, ab alia parte, nomina vernacula huius plantae, it. cardone, f-g. cardon, ang. cardoon, subnutare videntur *cardo -nis. --Iustinus 18:38, 16 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

In Verbs[fontem recensere]

This podcast is really useful. I think there are more in that series about diminutives too. Basically latin verb diminutive is:

  • All go to 1st verb declension (-o, -are, -avi, -atus)
  • They add mostly -ill- before the -o
  • Examples: Cantillare: To barely Hum, Conscribillare: To scribble, Murmurillare: To murmur a little. Harrissimo.

Declinatio tertia[fontem recensere]

Declinatio tertia difficilior esse videtur quam tu, Iustine, et ego putavimus.

Iam dixi "there are many special rules for different subtypes," nonne? ;) --Iustinus 01:02, 20 Septembris 2007 (UTC)
  • Nomina in -ēs, -is exeuntia diminutivum in -ēcul- mittunt. (Hoc est quod mihi videtur Servius (vide supra) dixisse)
vulpēs, vulpis > vulpēcula
sed:
saepēs, saepis > saepicula [addidi --Fabullus 11:12, 20 Septembris 2007 (UTC)]
  • Nomina in -is, -is exeuntia diminutivum in -icul- mittunt.
turris, turris > turricula
canis, canis > canicula
sed:
vallis, vallis > vallēcula (e forma alterna 'vallēs')
vitis, vitis > vitēcula (iuxta 'viticula')
iuvenis, iuvenis > iuvenculus (e synonymo 'iuvencus')
viridis, viridis (adi.) > viridulus [addidi --Fabullus 21:02, 19 Septembris 2007 (UTC)]
corbis, -is > corbula [addidi --Fabullus 11:24, 4 Octobris 2007 (UTC)]
  • Nomina neutri generis in -e, -is exeuntia diminutivum in -icul- mittunt.
rete, retis > reticulum (unicum exemplum quod invenire potui)
  • Nomina in -o, -ōnis/-ĭnis exeuntia diminutivum in -uncul- mittunt.
ratio, rationis > ratiuncula
homo, hominis > homunculus
  • Nomina quorum stirps? in -c- aut -g- exit diminutivum in -ul- mittunt.
vox, vocis > vocula
rex, regis > regulus
calx, calcis > calculus
falx, falcis > falcula
lanx, lancis > lancula
  • Nomina quorum stirps? antiquitus in -s- exiit diminutivum in -cul- mittunt.
flōs, flōris > flōsculus
ōs, ōris > ōsculum
mūs, mūris > mūsculus
pulvis, pulvĕris > pulvisculus [addidi --Fabullus 15:09, 5 Octobris 2007 (UTC)]
arbŏr, arbŏris > arbuscula (o brevis fit u)
iecŭr, iecŏris > iecusculum (o brevis fit u)
(anomale: ramus > rumulus, sed et ramusculus) [addidi --Iustinus 03:17, 21 Decembris 2007 (UTC)]
  • Nomina quorum stirps? exit in -r(r)- aut -l(l)- diminutivum in -cul- mittunt.
amator, amatoris > amatorculus
ver, veris > verculum
[mulier, mulieris > muliercula IacobusAmor 14:53, 27 Decembris 2007 (UTC)]
far, farris > farculum
mel, mellis > melculum
  • De nominibus quorum stirps? exit in -t- et -d- nescio quid faciam.
  • Nomina quorum stirps exit in -t- et -d- saepissime diminutivum in -ul- mittunt. [mutavi --Fabullus 11:01, 4 Octobris 2007 (UTC)]
caput, capitis > capitulum (= capit-ulum)
merces, mercedis > mercedula [addidi --Fabullus 10:03, 20 Septembris 2007 (UTC)]
nepos, nepotis > nepotulus [addidi --Fabullus 10:03, 20 Septembris 2007 (UTC)]
aetas, aetatis > aetatula [addidi --Fabullus 10:03, 20 Septembris 2007 (UTC)]
aries, arietis > arietillus (= ariet-illus)
glans, glandis > glandula (=gland-ula)
adulescens, -ntis > adulescentulus [addidi --Fabullus 11:01, 4 Octobris 2007 (UTC)]
valens, -ntis > valentulus [addid --Fabullus 11:01, 4 Octobris 2007 (UTC)]
blandiloquens, -ntis > blandiloquentulus [addidi --Fabullus 11:01, 4 Octobris 2007 (UTC)]
infans, -ntis > infantulus [addidi --Fabullus 12:06, 4 Octobris 2007 (UTC)]
sed:
lapis, lapidis > lapillus (= lapid-lus)
cor, cordis > corculum (=cord-culum)
pes, pedis > pediculus [addidi --Fabullus 10:03, 20 Septembris 2007 (UTC)]
Sed et anomale > petiolus [addidi --Iustinus 18:18, 17 Februarii 2008 (UTC)]
anas, anatis > anaticula [addidi --Fabullus 11:12, 20 Septembris 2007 (UTC)]

*Ceterum nomina quorum stirps? exit in -rt-, -lt-, -nt- diminutivum in -icul- mittunt.

pars, partis > particula
puls, pultis > pulticula
dens, dentis > denticulus
pons, pontis > ponticulus
lens, lentis > lenticula
  • De ceteris nominibus, quorum stirps? exit in -b- aut -p- aut in consonantes plures exempla non inveni.
ops, opis > ?
urbs, urbis > ?
stirps, stirpis > ?

--Fabullus 19:39, 19 Septembris 2007 (UTC)

I think urbs is urbecula. I have seen this in Hofmann a few times. One of which is here. There is also codex, codicillus. I'm not sure where that would fit in. Harrissimo.
Gratias tibi, Fabulle, ago pro laboribus tuis strenuis et utillimis!
Dicamus igitur pro declinatione i, si nominativum in -is vel -e exit, diminutivum esse -icul(us), sin autem -es, -ecul(us), regulum autem esse satis laxum.
Ita vero. --Fabullus 11:12, 20 Septembris 2007 (UTC)
Placet scire formulam de "velaribus," qualia sunt -c- et -g-. Nonnulla verba animadverteram, sed non formulam. Quod ad "dentales" pertinet, mira est variatio, et usque adhuc neque ego intelligo. Sine dubio classis quae continet –rt-, -lt-, -nt- ad omnia duobus litteris dissimilibus exeuntes pertinebit.
Tecum consentio. Fortasse regulam definire possumus omnia nomina quorum stirps exit in duas aut plures consonantes diminutivum mittere in -icul-, exceptionibus scilicet exceptis. Ceterum, si hanc regulam adhibemus in 'urbem', diminutivum 'urbicula', non 'urbecula' invenimus. Quod ad dentales singulas pertinet, novis exemplis allatis nunc credo haec nomina plerumque diminutivum in -ul- mittere, multis tamen casibus exceptis. --Fabullus 11:12, 20 Septembris 2007 (UTC)
Urbecula sounds right to me too, but there don't seem to be any classical examples thereof, its admissability is questionable. And I remind you that codicillus is adouble-diminutive. The fact that codiculus doesn't exist doesn't matter. Of course codicula exists, but that comes form cauda (weird). --Iustinus 01:02, 20 Septembris 2007 (UTC)
Duo tantum dimuntiva ex -b- aut -p- invenio:
scrobs, scrobis > scrobiculus
plebs, plebis > plebecula, plebicula
Ambo autem variationes ex -i- habent: scrobes, plebes, plebis. --Iustinus 01:46, 20 Septembris 2007 (UTC)
Et trabs, trabis > trabecula, trabicula --Fabullus 11:12, 20 Septembris 2007 (UTC)
Eh? Quomodo trabem ommisi!? De eo verbo cogitaveram, sed non, ut videtur, quaesivi. Sed et trabs habet formam alternam "trabes." --Iustinus 18:07, 20 Septembris 2007 (UTC)

Pure labial-stems and mixed i-stems[fontem recensere]

It might be a very good idea to make a distinction between the "pure" p-stem (mute stem) substantives (like princeps) and the mixed i-stem substantives that are p-stems in the singular but i-stems in the plural (like trabs). What would a diminutive form of princeps be? I was thinking principulus (which seems to be used in scientific Latin), following the same pattern used for diminutives of other mute stems (like regulus and capitulum) (check Lane's Latin Grammar, section 271). The form principiculus also appears, but it seems that that one is not as common. -- Diaphanus 00:39, 26 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

Until now I have tried as much as possible to confine the examples in the tables to those actually attested for classical Latin (i.e. those found in the TLL), and from those to try and find rules that may be applied to other words as well. The only labial-stems with diminutives Iustinus and I have been able to come up with thus far are: scrobs, plebs and trabs. In the TLL I have found neither principulus nor principitulus. With so few examples it seems hardly wise to subdivide them further, especially since the basis for this subdivision is rather weak. I take it that princeps is a pure labial-stem because its genetive plural is principum, whereas trabs is a mixed i-stem because its genetive plural is trabium (with i). However, this genetive plural is found only once in the entire TLL, viz. with the late fourth-century author Servius, which makes for a very small and not extremely reliable sample upon which to build such a division. On the other hand 'scrobs' which is more often found with nominative 'scrobis' and therefore seems a good candidate for Lane's class of mixed i-stems has the genetive plural scrobum (without i), which rather suggests that it is a pure labial-stem after all. (By the way, this genetive plural is also attested only once, with Columella). I propose therefore to keep our three examples together without further subdivision. --Fabullus 12:37, 27 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
The scrobs would be a mixed i-stem while the scrobis would be an i-stem according to Allen and Greenough (Allen and Greenough as well as Lane make a distinction between i-stems and mixed i-stems, but the former makes a more emphatic distinction). Either way, even with the instance of scrobum, that does not necessarily place the word(s) into the pure labial-stem category. (Other i-stems don't have the i: marum for mare, apum for apis.) -- Diaphanus 00:57, 28 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
I have checked Allen and Greenough for more information on the subject of mixed i-stems, but I must say that I find the whole thing rather confused and unwieldy and not very helpful when it comes to making diminutives. In the first place as Allen and Greenough say these mixed i-stems may come from two different groups (pure consonant-stems that have adopted some i-stem features, or pure i-stems that have acquired some consonant-stem properties), between which it is sometimes hard to distinguish. But might not this difference be essential in forming diminutives? In the second place the only two case endings by which the mixed i-stems are distinguished from pure consonant-stems, viz. the acc. plural in -īs (instead of -ēs) and the gen. plural in -ium (instead of -um) often fail us: the acc. plural in -īs was most often replaced by -ēs, and not even all mixed i-stems have a gen. plural in -ium. So there appears to be no hard criterion for deciding whether a word is a pure consonant-stem or a mixed i-stem. In the third place the examples of mixed i-stems cited by Allen and Greenough do not appear all to have the same diminutive-ending, but some have -ulus/a/um and others -iculus/a/um. I am much in favour, therefore, of leaving the unpractical distinction between pure consonant-stems and mixed i-stems aside. --Fabullus 10:45, 28 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
The more I look at the examples that have been provided in the main entry, the more I get the impression that whether there is the stem vowel i in a stem did determine, to some degree, on the form of the diminutives, and that the formation of diminutives was not just a matter of whatever was the ending of the bases ("stirpes" in the entry). The guidelines for determining whether a stem is a "mixed i-stem" may seem rather confused and unwieldy, but knowing them could give us a clue of whether -cul- tended to be used, or -ul- tended to be used. There are two reasons I think this.
One, Lane states: "Stems in -o-, -ā-, or a mute (-g-, -c-, -d-, -t-), take -lo- or -lā-, which is usually receded by -u-" (section 271) and "Stems in a continuous sound (-l-, -n-, -r-, or -s-), or in -i-, -u-, or -ē, usually take -cu-lo- or -cu-lā-" (section 275). Even though Lane and A&G aren't in agreement 100% on all of the various guidelines for a "mixed i-stem" (e.g. whether words ending in -tas, -tat-is are consonant stems or mixed i-stems), I have noticed that they do agree on two basic things: a) a substantival "mixed i-stem" is properly an i-stem (that is, it is a subset of the i-stems), and b) a third-declension adjective of one termination might have some i-stem forms, but its i-stem-hood is not as stable as the i-stem-hood of its substantival counterparts (A&G refers to these adjectives as consonantal stems with i-stem forms, while Lane puts the final i of these stems in parentheses, whereas there are no parentheses with the substantival mixed i-stems).
Two, this information appears congruent with the information in the "Stirpes in -c- et -g- exeuntes" table, and two of the three mixed substantival i-stems (lanx and falx) have diminutives in both -icul- and -ul- (the difference can be chalked up to whether their proper stem vowel i is considered, or whether their alternate consonant stems are considered, much like how Lane uses calc-ulus as an example of a diminutive formed from a mixed i-stem). In the "Stirpes in -t- et -d- exeuntes" table," 7 of the 10 examples in the "Diminutiva in -icul-" fit the criteria for mixed-i-stem-hood. The use of -ulus for the adjectives in -ns is not surprising when considering the apparent unstability of the i-stem-hood of such adjectives. Diminutives of words in -tas, -tat-is settled with the -ul- variant; their i-stem-hood appears more unstable than the others (Lane considers them consonant stems). Most of the information (or all of it when scrobs is taken as a mixed i-stem) in the "Stirpes in -p- et -b- exeuntes" (ignoring the Excepta, obviously) also reflects this information (e.g. trabs, as you mentioned, with its diminutive trab-iculus, or rather trabi-culus).
There are exceptions of course (e.g. pyxid-icula, gland-ula), but the power of analogy was always at work in the language. However, the information may suggest that if there were some kind of ideal, prescriptive rules for the formation of diminutives (ignoring all of the unstability of the i-stem-hood of the words), the mute substantival and adjectival stems would take -ul-, while the substantive i-stems, including the mixed i-stems, would add -cul- to the i of their stems. Even if we want to leave the distinction between pure consonant-stems and mixed i-stems aside, perhaps we could make a note that there is a technical distinction, where the substantival mixed i-stems are i-stems, and although they would ideally be treated as other i-stems in the formation of diminutives (by adding -cul- to the stem vowel), they are also treated as consonant stems in the formation of some diminutives. - Diaphanus 156.34.216.79 13:19, 7 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
Fixed some silly mistakes. Please forgive me. - Diaphanus 156.34.211.251 12:45, 16 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

De ratione tabellarum mutanda[fontem recensere]

Si consentitis omnes de eis quae in hac disputatione scripsimus, ratio tabellarum ab Harrissimone diligentissime factarum mihi mutanda videtur. --Fabullus 09:51, 19 Octobris 2007 (UTC). Rationem propono talem (exemplum sumpsi de declinationibus prima et secunda):

Classis Exempla Exceptiones
principale diminutivum principale diminutivum
nom. sg. gen. sg. nom. sg. nom. sg. gen. sg. nom. sg.
Regula principalis Vicus Vic-i Vic-ulus
Porta Port-ae Port-ula
Dōnum Dōn-i Dōn-ulum
stirpes in cons. + r Liber Libr-i Libel-lus
Umbra Umbr-ae Umbel-la
Sacrum Sacr-i Sacel-lum
stirpes in -ĭn- Gemĭnus Gemĭn-i Gemel-lus Domĭnus Domĭn-i Domĭn-ulus
Femĭna Femĭn-ae Femel-la Sarcĭna Sarcĭn-ae Sarcĭn-ula
? ? ?

Quid omnes censetis? Et, Harrissimo, qui tabellarum expertus es, tabellis (cum coloribus etc.) exornandis iterum operam dare velis? --Fabullus 10:35, 19 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

Videtur! Sed fortasse pauca melius praeberi possunt. Nescio. E.g. fortasse volumus scribere potius quam "exceptiones" "excipienda," vel "excepta." Estne fortasse melius nominativum et genitivum una columna unire, sicut in lexicis, e.g. "Dōnum -i"? Item, de exceptionibus quod fiat si plures una sint? --Iustinus 16:13, 20 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
Quo apertius dicam: macte virtute. Bella quidem est tabula! --Iustinus 16:14, 20 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

Equidem artem et rationem tabellarum facile approbo et valde laudo eos qui hanc operam navarunt. Si quid est de quo paullulum dubito, ad statum exceptionum attinet. Constat mutationes linguisticas ab exceptionibus vel novis formis stabilitatem usús violantibus proficisci. Itaque quod antea regulae vicem obtinuit postea exceptio facta est. Praesertim de stirpibus in -ĭn- exeuntibus hoc dicere volo: gemellus et femella etsi certe formae mutationibus phoneticis priscis e lege factis productae sint, exemplum "synchronicum" hominibus Ciceroniani temporis vix praebuerunt. Scio formam sarcinulae apud Ciceronem non inveniri (quod fortuito accidisse puto), sed persuasum est mihi Ciceronem, si opus fuit diminutivo sarcinae, vix *sarcellam formasse, nam haec formula illis temporibus iam obsolevit et quasi exceptio facta est. Itaque dominulus et sarcinula mihi re vera videntur regulae principali obtemperare et formulam productivam indicare, cum gemellus et femella formae excipiendae sint factae. --Neander 02:26, 21 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

Tecum consentio, Neander. Haec iam mecum considerabam. Scistine, ceterum, Ciceronem bis in operibus suis forma 'pagella' usum esse, semel tamen 'paginula'? --Fabullus 07:22, 21 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
Vobis ambobus, Iustine et Neander, magnas gratias ago ob exhortationes necnon admonitiones. Quibus consideratis tabellam accommodatam nunc in pagina includam. --Fabullus 07:22, 21 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I've taken so long. Aberam. I like this table a lot and it will be of more use to people and explains the reasons better than a simple 3-tier version. Well done, Fabulle! Harrissimo.

Nova tabula[fontem recensere]

PRO PAGINA DE DIMINUTIVO. Harrissimo.

Classis Exempla Regulam principalem
secuta
Principale Diminutivum Principale Diminutivum
Regula
principalis
vic-us vic-ulus
port-a port-ula
dōn-um dōn-ulum
Stirpes in
cons. + r
exeuntes
libĕr, libr-i libel-lus
umbr-a umbel-la
sacr-um sacel-lum
Stirpes in
-ĕr-
exeuntes
misĕr, misĕr-i (adi.) misel-lus misĕr, misĕr-i (adi.) misĕr-ulus
tenĕr, tenĕr-i (adi.) tenel-lus tenĕr, tenĕr-i (adi.) tenĕr-ulus
puĕr, puĕr-i puel-lus puĕr, puĕr-i puĕr-ulus
camĕr-a camel-la
patĕr-a patel-la littĕr-a littĕr-ula
opĕr-a opel-la opĕr-a opĕr-ula
tessĕr-a tessel-la tessĕr-a tessĕr-ula
Gratias ago tibi, Harrissimo. "Codicem" (en: code) tabulae meae paululum saltem simplificasti. Etsi adhuc est involutior quam quo recensores facile utantur, interdum tamen adhibeamus eum in pagina. [Ceterum: quomodo responsum meum infra tabulam ponere possum? Per me licet transferas] --Fabullus 19:53, 12 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Mutatio nominis huius paginae[fontem recensere]

Adhuc pagina tantum spectat ad formationem diminutivorum Latinorum, et nunc iam longior est quam ut paragraphi de diminutione in aliis linguis includi possunt. Hanc ergo paginam movebo ad "Diminutivum (Latinum)". Si voluerit aliquis de diminutivis in aliis linguis aut generaliter scribere, aliam paginam facito! --Fabullus 10:18, 20 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

Formatting proposition[fontem recensere]

(The following is copied from my talk page):
There is one thing about the article that concerns me. It might be a very good idea to categorize the different rules in terms of the actual stems of words (puella-, puero-, turri-, cornu-, spe-) rather than the bases of words (puell-, puer-, turr-, corn-, sp-). Sometimes the term "stem" is used when the user of the word really means "base." (That really confused me when I first got into Latin.) The reason for that kind of categorization is that words are normally grouped that way rather than by their bases, and it's the stem (often weakened or elided), not specifically the base, that is attached to the diminutive suffix. (Thank you and Merry Christmas to you too!) -- Diaphanus 22:34, 26 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
Harrissimo 10:27, 27 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
It is true that strictly speaking stems should be defined as you say, e.g. puella- and puero- etc. (That is why we call these stems a-stems, o-stems etc.). I don't agree however that these real stems should be used as the basis for the formation of diminutives. It may be possible (and perhaps even morphologically correct) to analyse puerulus as pueru-lus (< puero-lus), with -lus appended to the stem puero-, but what about puellula or portula? These can only reasonably be analysed as puell-ula and port-ula, i.e with -ula appended to the "reduced stem", or "base" - if you like. Yet if diminutives from 1st declension nouns are constructed using the "base" rather than the "stem", wouldn't it be more logical to analyse 2nd declension nouns in the same way? I.e. "reduced stem" or "base" + -ulus/-ulum, e.g. puer-ulus (rather than pueru-lus). In this way the analogy between other 1st and 2nd declension diminutives stands out much more clearly: cp. e.g. liber libr- libellus and umbra umbr- umbella. It turns out that if we use the "base" rather than the "stem" there really is no difference in the formation of diminutives between 1st and 2nd declension nouns. So your criticism really reduces to this: that on the page the word "stirps" ("stem") is used where according to you "basis" ("base") would have been more appropriate. I myself wasn't aware of the existence of the word "basis" ("base") in this technical sense, but if others agree with you I am prepared to change the words, or you are wellcome to do it yourself. --Fabullus 14:10, 27 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
I didn't mean to say that the stems, without change, should be used as the basis for the formation of diminutives! After all, something like puellula should not be analysed as something like puella- + -la, where the stem vowel a became u. In that case, the final vowel of the stem disappears, and so the stem itself becomes the "reduced stem" or "base" or "stem" (stirps in the article). I should have said "(often weakened and with the final vowel elided)." What I had mostly in mind when I made that comment about the stems and bases was the distinction between mutes and mixed i-stems. When I look at the tables in the article, it seems to me that "pure" i-stems regularly use (see "Exempla") the -icul- form while the mute stems (excluding the ones ending in t and d) regularly use (see "Exempla") the -ul- form. But when I look at the ones ending in t and d (also mutes), it is then I see the flip-flopping between -cul- and -ul- (not enough either way to pinpoint "Exempla" and "Excepta"), and this is where I also see mixed i-stems! So, the regular rules for i-stems (e.g. turr-icula) and the regular rules for other mute stems (e.g. reg-ulus) are used for mixed i-stems (e.g. civitat-ula and part-icula), and since some of those mixed i-stems have mute stems in the singular, those same rules have been used for the "pure" mute stems, too (e.g. pyxid-icula). The diminutives of plebs and trabs (mixed i-stems) seem to be following the -icul- rule that some of their mixed i-stem brethren (e.g. fonticulus) followed. (I would not want to lump princeps in the same category with plebs and trabs as simply a b- or p-stem.) Perhaps "Stirpes in -p- et -b- exeuntes" could be changed to "Nomina in -ps et -bs..."? Or perhaps mixed i-stems could have their separate category? -- Diaphanus 00:17, 28 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of puellula, do you have puella itself? It's presumably a form of puerula. IacobusAmor 13:17, 11 Martii 2008 (UTC)