Disputatio:Supremum
"pro subcopiis numerorum realum"[fontem recensere]
Pro realum, lege realium ? IacobusAmor 14:28, 11 Maii 2011 (UTC)
- Grr. Thanks for the correction -- another grammatical hole in my head filled. --Robert.Baruch 15:09, 11 Maii 2011 (UTC)
- Hey, that's what Vicipaedia is for! Third-declension adjectives of two endings (e.g., facilis, facile) almost always make gen. pl. in -ium. Gildersleeve (#79) says the only exceptions in classical prose are Titiensum and familiarum. Another of their tricky characteristics is that acc. pl. is often -is (rather than -es). IacobusAmor 15:23, 11 Maii 2011 (UTC)
- Btw, realis doesn't seem classical (it's not in Cassell's), and the classical word for the idea of 'real', according to Cassell's, is verus, sincerus, solidus, germanus ; but presumably realis is a verbum mathematicae proprium? IacobusAmor 15:27, 11 Maii 2011 (UTC)
- I got it from Numerus realis, which does list an attestation. Medieval, of course. --Robert.Baruch 20:17, 11 Maii 2011 (UTC)
- Btw, realis doesn't seem classical (it's not in Cassell's), and the classical word for the idea of 'real', according to Cassell's, is verus, sincerus, solidus, germanus ; but presumably realis is a verbum mathematicae proprium? IacobusAmor 15:27, 11 Maii 2011 (UTC)
- Hey, that's what Vicipaedia is for! Third-declension adjectives of two endings (e.g., facilis, facile) almost always make gen. pl. in -ium. Gildersleeve (#79) says the only exceptions in classical prose are Titiensum and familiarum. Another of their tricky characteristics is that acc. pl. is often -is (rather than -es). IacobusAmor 15:23, 11 Maii 2011 (UTC)