Talk:horreo
Feedback
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Feedback.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Hi, I've checked the verb horreo in my Cassel's Dictionary, and in it, it's a regular second conjugation verb, with passive forms and a supinum form as well (searching for horreri online actually I found it in a few books scanned by Google Books). However, the similar verb horresco does indeed not have passive forms in the dictionary as well. Another problem: the gerundive - horrendus exists in wiktionary although this page doesn't list it (also many derived forms exist in Latin languages).
- Passive added. Anything I haven't fixed, you can probably fix yourself (this is a wiki). SemperBlotto 16:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm only finding evidence for the third-person passive, and cannot find support for the currently listed participle forms. Cassel's contains many errors, and this could be one of them. The major dictionaries I own list no supine form, and the conjugated tables I have include no passive forms. --EncycloPetey 02:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
RFV
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
Latin. Tagged by one of our Latin experts, EncycloPetey, but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 03:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- I wonder why he did that? It's in Lewis & Short. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- I've added three citations from Latin Wikisource - thousands more to choose from. Somebody else can translate them if they want. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- This is why it was listed. The issue isn't whether the verb as a whole can be verified, but whether certain verb forms listed in the conjugation table can be. —Angr 08:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Well, that's all too difficult for me (only la-1). But if anyone would like to supply an example of an inflected form that shouldn't be there, I'll see if I can find citations for it. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Actually only needs one citation, but nothing wrong with three, of course. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- The problem was brought up at ], pointing out that the particular form horreo does not seem to appear in Latin. The citations added only support other forms, not the lemma form, which is the particular form called into question. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- FWIW, we have kept Gothic entries before (not unanimously) which only had attested inflected forms, not attested lemma forms... but only when the inflected forms allowed the lemma form to be deduced with reasonable certainty. - -sche (discuss) 01:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Sounds like another manifestation of the normalized spellings issue (going beyond normalizing a single form to normalizing the paradigm). Chuck Entz (talk) 04:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- The way Wiktionary is structured, it makes things very difficult if we don't have a lemma. How do we define the inflected forms? "Third-person singular present tense of a verb the citation form of which is unattested: he is frightful"? - -sche (discuss) 04:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- There are Latin verbs that never have a first-person form, and the lemma is diffeent for those verbs. The verb pluit (“it rains”) is such a verb, and its lemma is not the usual one for that reason. Although the form of the first-person can be deduced, it wasn't used and its translation would be nonsensical. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- The way Wiktionary is structured, it makes things very difficult if we don't have a lemma. How do we define the inflected forms? "Third-person singular present tense of a verb the citation form of which is unattested: he is frightful"? - -sche (discuss) 04:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Sounds like another manifestation of the normalized spellings issue (going beyond normalizing a single form to normalizing the paradigm). Chuck Entz (talk) 04:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- FWIW, we have kept Gothic entries before (not unanimously) which only had attested inflected forms, not attested lemma forms... but only when the inflected forms allowed the lemma form to be deduced with reasonable certainty. - -sche (discuss) 01:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- I've changed the RFV tag to an RFC tag. The lemma is attested (as Angr shows!); if certain passive forms are unattested, they should be removed. If this requires redesigning the inflection template,... that's still not an RFV issue. - -sche (discuss) 21:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)