Talk:obnubilus
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Soumya-8974 in topic RFC discussion: August 2017–April 2020
Old vs. Classical Latin
edit@I'm so meta even this acronym: Hey there! Latin and Old Latin are technically considered separate languages, so you can't use the Latin headword, inflection, or pronunciation templates for it as they categorize it as “Latin”, la, and not “Old Latin”, itc-ola. —JohnC5 20:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- @JohnC5: I really don't know how I feel about having a separate header for Old Latin... Or at least we should be quite strict about when to use it. --Barytonesis (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Barytonesis: They are certainly distinct languages with distinct phonology and morphology. If a word is Old Latin then it absolutely should not be under a "Latin" header. The question is what qualifies. —JohnC5 21:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
- @JohnC5: I agree. About this entry, I'd say it doesn't. --Barytonesis (talk) 22:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Barytonesis: They are certainly distinct languages with distinct phonology and morphology. If a word is Old Latin then it absolutely should not be under a "Latin" header. The question is what qualifies. —JohnC5 21:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup (permalink).
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.
The header says Old Latin, but everything else in the entry is regular Latin. —CodeCat 11:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- Notice the -us ending on the entry. The -us in Classical Latin is -os in Old Latin. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 13:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- RfC failed. Changed to Latin. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 13:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)