Appendix talk:Latin/oclus
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits (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.
oclus is a Vulgar Latin form, not a mere alternative spelling of oculus. And it is attested in the w:Appendix Probi, so it's not a reconstruction. --Fsojic (talk) 14:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- Move per other attested VL. forms like oricla and veclus. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- Merged into the main namespace and deleted from the appendix namespace, per RFM and RFD. - -sche (discuss) 02:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others (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.
Oclus is attested, so this content doesn’t need to be in the appendix. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Where is it attested? DTLHS (talk) 23:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Based on the etymology section, it seems to be attested as a mention, not a use. --WikiTiki89 23:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Mentions are valid for ancient languages. — Ungoliant (falai) 00:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Are they? --WikiTiki89 00:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Not even Classical Latin is listed at WT:WDL, and Vulgar Latin is even less well attested. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- The CFI says “For terms in extinct languages, one use in a contemporaneous source is the minimum, or one mention is adequate subject to the below requirements.” I know that one of these requirements is that a list of acceptable sources be maintained, but in practice people just take it for granted that a source is adequate unless someone calls it into question. — Ungoliant (falai)
- Fair enough. I presume that the mention also needs to be contemporary (as it is in this case), since we wouldn't want bogus entries from a modern Dictionary of Vulgar Latin. --WikiTiki89 14:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see why. Surely we allow mentions from other modern dictionaries of ancient languages. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Because if a modern dictionary has a word that cannot be found anywhere else, then where did the dictionary itself get it from? In the case of a contemporary mention, we can at least presume that the author had access to sources that were not preserved, as well as to the spoken language itself. --WikiTiki89 19:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see why. Surely we allow mentions from other modern dictionaries of ancient languages. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I presume that the mention also needs to be contemporary (as it is in this case), since we wouldn't want bogus entries from a modern Dictionary of Vulgar Latin. --WikiTiki89 14:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Are they? --WikiTiki89 00:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Mentions are valid for ancient languages. — Ungoliant (falai) 00:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- So start a list of appropriate sources and add this one. What is it by the way? Old French has a list (of one item): Wiktionary:About Old French#Appropriate sources for a single mention. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Merged into the main namespace and deleted from the appendix namespace, per RFM and RFD. - -sche (discuss) 02:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)