Talk:pluo

@Inqvisitor It may be attested in the Classical period, but that does not make it 'proper' Classical Latin. Petronius' goal in writing dialogue like that was to mock the speak of the uneducated. We do not add, for example, faciatur as a legitimate passive subjunctive form of facio, even though it is also found in the Satyricon, alongside numerous other 'vulgarisms'. This is what we have the label Vulgar Latin for. Nicodene (talk) 10:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

What makes you more qualified than Petronius to determine what constitutes 'proper' Classical Latin? You are correcting his Latin? There was no prescriptive authority with authority to dictate 'proper Latin' even when it was spoken in its golden age; highly presumptuous for moderns 2,000 years later to presume to know better than actual Latin authors. What you call "vulgarisms" are just arbitrary pronouncements of modern scholars. Like any other language, Latin spoken across the vast Roman Empire was in reality far more divers in usage than any arbitrary modern prescriptivist interpretation of what constitutes "proper" Classical Latin could ever encompass; what constitutes "proper" Latin can only ever be arbitrary and subjective since not even the most educated modern scholar could ever know for sure how the language was used in normal standard speech in all the different regions of the empire across many centuries of use—long before Latin began breaking down into Vulgar Latin Romance tongues in the early Middle Ages. Then we in fact end up with a fake language that may not have ever actually been the 'standard' at all, but just affectations of a tiny educated elite unrecognizable by 95% of the native speakers who actually spoke the language on the daily. Every language has local dialects and accents even from town to town; the classical Roman Empire was multinational spanning the known Occidental world.

Not only is plovebat attested in written form, but Petronius was a Classical Latin author and he wrote the word in the Satyricon—a literary work (not just some random inscription on a stone which also constitutes written attestation)—so ipso facto, it's a variant form in Classical Latin literature. A Classical Latin lexicon would be deficient to not include the form.

The word is also Vulgar Latin; if one were to reconstruct Proto-Romance forms one would likely expect to construct a form such as *plovebat. But plovebat is still an attested word in 1st century Classical period Latin literary use. Petronius lived c. 27 to 66 AD; it would be silly to try to retcon anything written in 1st century Classical Latin literature into a "vulgarism" and thus quote the Satyricon (written no later than 60 AD) in a Vulgar Latin entry, which is rather an anachronism. 'Vulgar Latin' is used by modern linguists to refer to what we think was common spoken language—but it's not mutually exclusive with the written language of the period. In most cases, we just don't have reliable written evidence that a particular 'vulgar' form was actually spoken in a given time period, hence why capital-V 'Vulgar Latin' (which didn't yet exist in the 1st century) is typically construed as reconstruction rather than an actual language, since we lack reliable evidence as to if/when such 'vulgarisms' ever emerged in real Latin. But we have proof plovebat was in Classical use, in written literary use, but as you acknowledge even more than that it suggests plovebat was already a common standard form in vulgar (spoken) Classical Latin, and pluebat possible only a synthetic affectation of an educated elite at least as early as the 1st century. The word 'vulgar' has negative connotations in English, but it's meant here simply in sense of sermo vulgaris, i.e. common speech.

Just because a word is found in common speech—even if used by the so-called 'uneducated' masses (arbitrary classification that would probably exclude 99% of history's Latin-speakers, including even many of the most learnèd literate Classical Latin speakers/writers, who lack even basic education by modern standards)—does not mean a word is therefore incorrect and not a real word—just the opposite, that's the real language. That a rich pretentious elite may adopt synthetic affections, and mock the sermo vulgaris/common speech of the peoples of Ancient Rome, does not mean the Latin spoken natively by the peoples of Ancient Rome in the classical period is incorrect or 'vulgar' in the English sense. Such class/education distinctions are found in any language. The proper Queen's English spoken as standard in Buckingham Palace might sound bizarre, nonstandard, even incomprehensible to Anglophones in rural northern England, Scotland, or in America, and vice versa. To educated upper classes, the same language in the same time period spoken by lower classes might sound vulgar, uncouth, improper by convention—but that doesn't mean they're not really speaking the language properly.

Inqvisitor (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@Inqvisitor In the Satyricon, specifically the Cena Trimalchionis, Petronius mocks uneducated, lower-class freedmen by having them speak sentences with numerous grammatical mistakes (as in faciatur for fiat) or phonological hypercorrections, notably including examples of /h/-omission or inappropriate /h/-insertion (as in hinsidias for insidias). The Satyricon is famously cited by historical linguists for the Vulgar Latin features that it attests, even if only to deride them. The fact that Petronius wrote the lines does not mean that they are in any way 'correct' or 'literary'- quite the opposite, considering the context. Please look up any scholarly treatment of the Satyricon if you do not believe me.

Vulgar Latin is also the term normally used by historical linguists to refer to the speech of the freedmen satirized by Petronius- full of nonstandard features as it is. No less a figure than Jozsef Herman (2000: p. 17), to cite only the first that comes to mind, cites it as one of the most accurate examples of Vulgar Latin that survives. It is not 'anachronistic'- the term is also standardly used in reference to the Pompeiian graffiti of the first century CE: a search on Google Books for 'Vulgar Latin' and 'Pompeii' will amply demonstrate this. If your conception of Vulgar Latin is specifically Proto-Italo-Romance or such, that is indeed one of the definitions used, but far from the only one.

Plovebat is specifically cited as a vulgarism by Palmer in The Latin Language, p. 151: see here. Simply searching 'plovebat' and 'Vulgar' together brings up numerous other scholarly sources that do so.

My goal in categorizing the word as Vulgar Latin is not to deride it at all: it is to indicate on Wiktionary that the term is non-standard and without a doubt prescriptively incorrect for Classical Latin, much as we do not cite Cockney forms as standard in our English entries. Nicodene (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Not quite sure what your point is...yes the Satyricon can be a gold mine source for variant word forms that were actually used in authentic spoken classical Latin of the 1st century—as opposed to some artificial pure Classical Latin (devoid of normal linguistic variation found in every real language) that never existed in the real world, but is more an attempted synthetic reconstruction of modern scholars. Whether a word should be classified as a variant form or proscribed and dismissed as incorrect is a subjective editorial decision that reflects the personal biases of individual academics; they would have no way of knowing exactly how these words were used and understood in the 1st century.

'Vulgar Latin' is somewhat ambiguous terminology but at its most basic level refers to colloquial, spoken Latin, as opposed to written, literary Latin. A word can be both vulgar and classical, if it is both spoken and written in the Classical period. In the case of Latin, we just don't often know what the spoken sermo vulgaris sounded like and how it differed from written Classical Latin produced by educated authors seeking to conform to some literary standards that did not apply in real common speech of the Classical period. Literary works often contain affected speech that would differ wildly even from how the author himself spoke in his daily life; whether authors are trying to make the voices within their literary works sound higher class or lower class to their intended audience of readers. That's part of the craft of writing. In this sense of the term, I agree, and did include a label of 'Vulgar' on the page.

More specifically, in a proper sense (certainly on Wiktionary), Vulgar Latin is used to refer to spoken forms of the language that began to emerge in different parts of the Roman Empire in late antiquity, mostly in the centuries that followed the 5th century collapse of the Western (Latin) Roman Empire, which branched out into various Proto-Romance languages. This is not a literary language recorded in writing, but a transitional stage of late regional dialects of spoken Latin that begin to resemble different Romance languages; a shrinking population of literate educated people sought to preserve written Latin as a dead language subject to artificial rules modeled on a Classical ideal (regardless of whether it genuinely reflected authentic Classical Latin), which became an academic, literary, liturgical language. So spoken Vulgar Latin largely has to be reconstructed working backwards from known Romance language forms. Hence again I agree forms like *plovebat would also be derived in Vulgar Latin reconstruction, independently of attested Classical usage. But it's not at all typical of Vulgar Latin, as understood this way, that its forms would be attested in literary Classical Latin of the 1st century, nor even 2nd or 3rd. And if some scholars are right in their interpretation of Petronius, even less typical that the Vulgar Latin forms that evolved into Italian, French, Spanish, etc. were already standard in common speech of 1st century Classical Rome.

Trying to get into the head of an author—especially one from such foreign time/place, dead for two millennia—can be an interesting academic thought experiment. However, there is no dispute that Petronius was an esteemed educated literate Classical Latin author of high status, who lived c. 27 to 66 AD, and that he wrote his Satyricon a renowned Classical Latin literary work, in the 1st century. Regardless of varying individual opinions on what you think the original intent of the author was—within the context of his own story-crafting and writing style—all we have today is the text that Petronius wrote, in Classical Latin. Anything outside the text is subjective interpretation.

Unless the Classical Latin author himself specifically labeled the words he wrote as incorrect, then the words he intentionally chose to write and leave for us in his 1st century Classical Latin literary text are ipso facto 'correct' Classical Latin, including variant word forms like plovebat. The alternative forms likely also can be labeled 'vulgar' Latin—in common verbal use among ordinary Classical Latin speakers of the 1st century—but indisputably, the words are found written in literary Classical Latin. To relegate a Classical Latin literature quote from the Satyricon of Petronius (dated c. 60 AD) to a Vulgar Latin entry, affirmatively labeling his Classical literary text as nonstandard and proscribed, seems self-evidently absurd.

Inqvisitor (talk) 22:47, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@Inqvisitor Again, the consensus of scholarship (which is what Wiktionary should, as a matter of policy, reflect) is that plovebat and the other forms mentioned above are vulgarisms. They are most certainly not 'ipso facto correct' just because they are quoted by an author that deliberately satirizes lower-class speech (again, per the consensus of scholarship; see e.g. Adams 2013: 419). If you dispute either of the above points, cite a scholarly source.

Again, Vulgar Latin does not only refer to reconstructed Proto-Romance, neither on Wiktionary nor in scholarly works, nor is that definition in any way more 'correct'. The term is, as noted above, standardly used in reference not only to Pompeiian inscriptions, but also specifically in reference to the satirized speech of lower-class freedmen in Petronius' work. There is nothing 'absurd' about using the label Vulgar Latin here, unless you wish to suggest that scholars such as Herman and Palmer—not to mention Posner (1996: 202), Adams (1977: 1), etc.—authors of standard reference works pertaining to the subject, all suffered temporary bouts of insanity. Nor does it mean that anything that Petronius wrote is 'nonstandard/proscribed'- this has to do specifically with the vulgarisms that he put into the mouth of lower-class characters and which are not found in the literary register. If we were to follow your line of reasoning, hinsidias must also be correct Classical Latin, as well as vinus, as well as caelus, faciatur, etc. Are you prepared to defend that? Nicodene (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Round two

@Inqvisitor In case you haven't noticed, that exact quote is provided on the entry for plovo, so complaining about the removal of redundant copies of it on pluit and pluo is entirely baseless. Moreover, both of the latter entries have another usage quote, so that is not a concern either. And, as far as I can see, it is completely contrary to Wiktionary practice to include a quote of a Vulgar Latin form as a usage example for the corresponding Classical form.

If you really believe that plovebat is 'literary' just because it is found inserted for satirical effect into the mouth of a lower-class character in a work by Petronius, then prove it. Cite a scholarly source supporting the identification of that word, or vinus, or hinsidias, or faciatur or the other such satirized incorrect forms, as supposedly 'literary'. I have already provided multiple sources identifying such words as Vulgar Latin: now it is your turn to search for citations in support of your personal opinion on said words. I would be, needless to say, floored if even a single source exists claiming such a thing. Feel free to prove me wrong. Nicodene (talk) 16:28, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

The form plovebat is literary because it is an attested form written in Classical Latin literature of the 1st century, viz. the Satyricon of Petronius. It is (likely) a vulgar variant form in the sense of being an attested common speech variant form of the verb pluo/pluit, attested in literary writing of the 1st century. But splitting hairs over what is "literary" or not is a silly and irrelevant. It doesn't matter what some scholars think: there is no way to prove exactly how words were used by Classical authors, nor how the words were used and perceived by his readers, nor by general Latin-speakers of the 1st century. Any scholar who claims they can tell you for sure what was in the head of Petronius or any 1st century Latin writer or speaker is not brilliant but an arrogant fool. Nowhere did Petronius write "I am using this fake word for satirical effect". Now doubly trying get into the head of ancient author Petronius, while assuming he is trying to get into the head of what he might think a lower-class character would say? Sheer folly to even attempt.

Moreover, it's irrelevant. The form plovebat is cited as a vulgar variant form of pluebat under the entry pluo/pluit in every lexicon, such as Lewis & Short and Georges, precisely because it is understood as a vulgar (common) spoken variant of the standard literary Classical Latin verb, not as an attestation for a whole new separate verb *plovo. Again what verb did Petronius think he was using? How would his readers parse plovebat? If we accept the judgment of the "scholars" you cite, Petronius was using what he perceived as a lower-class vulgar variant from the verb pluo/pluit. (It would not be a vulgar form if plovo were a standard literary Classical Latin verb.)

So even assuming everything you say is true about how plovebat is merely vulgar Latin, that just further supports the notion that it should be listed as variant form derived from the verb pluo/pluit, perhaps developing among lower-register speakers of the 1st century—and not draw the conclusion that a whole new separate lemma verb plovo was already standard in the 1st century.

Centuries separate Petronius from the evolution of Classical Latin and Late Latin vulgar forms into the Proto-Romance descendants derived from reconstructed form *plovo. There is way too much of a dark age gap to jump to conclusions about how widespread plovo forms were in the 1st century and extrapolate that to late antiquity/middle ages when *plovo apparently became a standard replacement in Late Vulgar Latin/Proto-Romance whence evolved modern Romance language forms.

What Latin lexicon contains an entry plovo rather than list it as a vulgar form under pluo/pluit? None of the dictionaries cited on Wiktionary contain a plovo entry.

Anyway, the underlying dispute of this whole tedious debate is one of the silliest I've ever encountered on any Wiki. As I said I think the burden is on you to explain how removing an ancient source quote from Classical Latin author Petronius, and erasing acknowledgement of the existence of an attested variant form of pluebat in a 1st century Classical source (the same way L&S and every lexicon does), somehow improves Wiktionary as a reference site? It seems like you are stubbornly arguing for the sake of argument, because otherwise the material in question appears so non-controversial that anyone who repeatedly insisted on deleting a verified authentic ancient Latin source quote and its word form from the entry could only be engaged in petty vandalism to render Wiktionary less useful and informative. Inqvisitor (talk) 17:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@Inqvisitor So I have cited four of the leading scholars in Latin and Romance Linguistics, all in support of what I am saying about the words in question, and your reply is to claim that any person who says what they say is 'an arrogant fool'! I am absolutely flabbergasted at the audacity of that. Who are you, exactly, to say that about them? Do you have any credentials whatsoever in the field, to casually call Palmer, Herman, Adams, and Posner idiots? That is simply incredible.

If you were arguing that plovebat should be listed under an alternative forms section on pluo or pluit, that'd be absolutely fine. But that's not what you have done. You have, strangely, inserted it into the automatically generated inflexion table, which is completely contrary to Wiktionary practice and makes zero sense whatsoever. By that logic, we should insert, in the inflexion table of insidiae, an alternative inflexion for hinsidias (alongside insidias), and likewise with any attested Vulgar Latin form. That is obviously not what anyone has done: we have a separate entry for hinsidiae, based on that attestation of the accusative. If you really think that shoving a lone, non-standard alternate form into a regular, standard conjugation table makes any sense whatsoever, a radical departure from anything done on Wiktionary or elsewhere, then you can go ahead and propose the idea in the Beer Parlour.

Your asking 'what Latin lexicon contains an entry plovo rather than list it as a vulgar form under pluo/pluit' is specious because, as I have already explained to you, most of our Vulgar Latin entries, perhaps nearly all or even all (!), are not provided as lemma forms in any standard Latin dictionary like Lewis & Short. (That, by the way, is because they were non-literary forms of standard words, which is something that you refuse to accept!) That's not even mentioning Medieval Latin entries. That's not even mentioning the fact that there has never been a policy on Wiktionary of requiring a lemma form to be provided by a standard dictionary as a lemma form.

Your trying to shift the burden of proof on me is also specious, considering that you have cited exactly zero sources in support of what, as is becoming increasingly clear, is simply your opinion. And accusing me of being motivated by some burning desire for vandalism (!), when I have laid out in extensive detail why the content was, and should be, removed, is a blatant personal attack. And the fact that you are ignoring the fact that that exact quote is already provided on the entry for plovo, even after I just pointed it out, is simply incomprehensible. The quote is not being removed from Wiktionary: the quote is being removed from an entry where it simply does not belong, and moved to one where it does. Nicodene (talk) 17:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Lots of strange verbiage there unrelated to the topic; seems you are arguing with someone else, or only with yourself. I don't care about fallacious appeals to "credentials" or authority (actually not even sure what you are appealing to them about). I've long grown exhausted of this silly bickering. The issue here is rather simple: whether or not to delete from the entry an ancient source quote using a form of the verb in the Satyricon, written by 1st century Classical Latin author Petronius. The quote is verifiable, linked, and I don't believe you question its authenticity. As mentioned, dictionaries like L&S and Georges reference the form used by Petronius in their pluo entries. Anyone who encounters the verse or is looking up the word would be helped by reference materials which acknowledge its existence, thus many lexicon sources do.

Recording in written literature a variant form that may have also been in common (vulgar) spoken use is rather different than creating a whole new entry for a whole new verb *plovo. Such a Vulgar Latin verb may have later spread, as evidenced by Romance language development, but one lone isolated conjugated form of such a hypothetical verb by Petronius in the 1st century, purportedly written to imitate lower-class non-standard 'vulgar' usage of the time, is not enough to assume there was any standard proper verb *plovo at the time the Satyricon was written. The word form may potentially provide clues as to the development of Vulgar Latin reconstructions that emerged and evolved into Proto-Romance languages centuries later, but mere resemblance to a theoretical later reconstructed form is not enough to assume the attested 1st century word is anything more than a hapax legomenon. I think the burden is always on someone deleting verified information, like an original source quote, to provide good cause. There's nothing subjective here, it's literally just a helpful usage quote from the 1st century.

As for the "plovo" page, you must admit you are being disingenuous as you yourself are the one who added the quote to that page. Although personally I'm not sure whether such a page should even exist, except perhaps as a reconstructed form, heretofore I never edited that plovo page—frankly to try to steer clear of unpleasant conflict and controversy with you like this. But if you want me to delete the quote from that page to settle this and at last move on, okay, fine. Inqvisitor (talk) 18:37, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@Inqvisitor So another personal attack: now I'm "disingenuous" for basically saying that I moved the quote! In the exact same sentence I talked about removing it from pluo (by myself! who else could it have been?) and moving it to plovo, and you think I was trying to say that someone else saw that I removed it from the former and, independently, decided to move it to plovo? Who is this mysterious third person? That is a frankly bizarre interpretation, and I've no idea how you managed to arrive at it. Nobody else was involved but you and I, and I have never suggested otherwise.

When two people disagree, citing multiple reliable sources on the matter is a solution. With all due respect to your attempt to just dismiss the authors of the sources as idiots (and me along with them, by the way, thank you for that), it's just not going to cut it. You can go on believing that the words aren't Vulgar Latin all you please, but for the purposes of Wiktionary, they are until any further notice. That further notice being you citing an academic source that says they are not Vulgar Latin or at least doubts it. (A source that, let's be honest, doesn't actually exist, and for good reason.) Citing sources is a core principle of Wiki and, in general, academia, especially when there's a disagreement. Obviously.

Lexicons do reference plovebat in the entry for pluo/pluit, but that is exactly what our alternative forms section is for. What you have done, namely inserting a single Vulgar form into a Classical conjugation table, makes no sense and has been done by literally nobody else, neither on Wiktionary nor, as far as I can tell, anywhere outside of it.

You seem to assume that other conjugations of the Vulgar form are unattested, but I sincerely doubt that is the case. And in any case, adding a regular inflexion table for a verb where not all forms are attested is literally standard practice for Latin. How many first-person forms of pluo do you think are accepted? Most of them pull up exactly zero results, yet there they are on our pretty little table. I'll do research later on which plov- forms are in fact attested, but I digress. That's really not the main point here.

In principle, having plovebat listed under 'alternative forms' and clearly labeled Vulgar Latin (with a citation or three), and then adding the quote containing it to that entry, seems acceptable and basically the equivalent of what L&S do. (Note that they do not, in any way shape or form, provide plovebat, or any plov- form, in their list of the principle parts of the verb!) If you've no objection then we can just be done with it. Nicodene (talk) 19:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Again you seem to be arguing with yourself, being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative, imagining personal attacks where there are none; I did not start this dispute, and would love to move on already. This is silly. The form plovebat is a Classical Latin variant form from the verb pluo, as all other Latin dictionaries state. Proof is directly provided in the entry by inclusion of the cited sourced quote from 1st century Classical Latin author Petronius in his literary work the Satyricon, as referenced by L&S, Georges, and other lexicons under their pluo entries—confirming the form occurs at least once in literary Classical Latin. (It should be self-evidently nonsensical to try to claim verses from 1st century works of Classical Latin literature are actually Vulgar Latin!) Any Latin student is well-served by being able to access on Wiktionary information consistent with what they would receive from entries in any old-fashioned lexicon. It's really quite as simple as that. Inqvisitor (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@Inqvisitor You seem to be operating under the mistaken assumption that Vulgar Latin cannot refer to something in the Classical period, or that doing so is somehow incorrect, an assumption which betrays a remarkable unfamiliarity with the subject matter, to say the least. Your personal opinion that it's "nonsensical" counts for quite literally nothing compared to the statements and views of top scholars in the field. I could go into detail here, and point out that 'Vulgar Latin' is used here as a label of register, not one of time period, much less one of of reconstructed vs. attested status, but everything I've seen so far points to you having zero regard for such details. So hammering you with sources it is. Should I cite a dozen more just to drive home the point? You can spare me the effort and simply search 'Petronius' + 'Vulgar' in Google Books. Have at it and see what happens.

You are free to continue believing what you do. You can believe that Greek derives from Ancient Tamil, so long as you don't mess with actual entries according to dubious personal convictions.

I ask again: have you any objection to moving plovebat to the alternative forms section, as is accepted practice (unlike awkwardly shoving it into a conjugation table), with notes explaining what it is? If you don't express any objection, I'm going to simply do it. I am explicitly telling you ahead of time to forestall any "stealth editing" complaints. Nicodene (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I already made concessions to you 9 months ago, adding a footnote on the colloquial nature of the form in the Classical period when Petronius used the word. Furthermore, I included a link to your plovo project page (though I'm not sure that lemma should exist except as reconstruction). Anyone who clicks on the forms themselves will also find the page pluebat identified as Classical and plovebat labeled as Vulgar Latin. The literate readers of the 1st century would snicker precisely because plovebat was apparently an irregular form in common lower class sermo vulgaris use where higher registers would use pluebat—both conjugated from pluo. There is no further need to obsess over labeling vulgar vs. classical. A form need not even be classical to be included, if it be a written literary form from Late Latin or Medieval Latin, etc. This is not a zero-sum game; I wish you all the best in your scholastic project researching forms of *plovo. I assure you that citing a Satyricon quote written by Petronius in the 1st century, and identifying the colloquial conjugated verb form he uses for third person singular imperfect of pluo, will not impede your own research project on *plovo. Inqvisitor (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@Inqvisitor 'Adding a footnote on the colloquial nature of the form' is a concession? That is simply admitting what literally any source will tell you. Precisely the same goes for labelling it as Vulgar Latin, as even Lewis & Short do, by the way. (Perhaps they're idiots too?) That is simply what is.

Per the FEW, it really does appear that no other plov- form is attested, and I haven't found a plovet or plovere elsewhere. So I've no problem with removing the entry for plovo and moving its contents to pluit or pluo, leaving a note in the descendants section about *plovĕre.

I take it you've no objection to moving plovebat out of the conjugation table, unless the above comment was meant to imply one. Nicodene (talk) 22:39, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

The footnote was for sure a concession because typically entries don't need to obsess over specifying which modern category labels apply to each form of an ancient word, except on a word's own page. The pages for pluebat and plovebat already list each other as alternative forms (and classical/vulgar), which is what they are. Not sure what else you are suggesting. plovebat is an alternative form of conjugated verb pluebat; surely you are not suggesting listing plovebat as alternative form to the lemma pluo or pluit? That would be silly, messy, confusing, and also just incorrect. Obviously no if that's what you mean.

Alternative conjugated forms belong in the conjugation table. Entirely normal to list multiple irregular/alternative conjugated forms of a lemma verb in a conjugation box; in this case plovebat is listed correctly as an alternative form for third-person singular imperfect active indicative of pluo—i.e. a variant form of pluebat. Self-evident that it's an alternative form since there are two forms in that conjugation box, the alt form is listed second and doesn't follow the pattern of the regularly-conjugated classical forms. AND, there is a footnote to further address your specific concerns about identifying the alternative form as colloquial vulgar speech, at least in the classical period when Petronius recorded it in writing. Waste of time/effort to further argue over changes that would make an existing entry less informative, less helpful as a reference source, rather than improve and expand on new words. Basta. Quod scripsi, scripsi. Inqvisitor (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@Inqvisitor We are not having a Vulgar Latin alternative to a single conjugation awkwardly inserted into the normal inflexion table. That is not just against Wiktionary practice, that is against literally everyone's practice. The results of it, if taken to their logical conclusion with the tables on other entries, would be nightmarish to say the least. (Amicum sharing its cell with amico and amicu; amicus sharing its cell with amicos and vice-versa; amicorum and amicoro.... no thanks, absolutely not.)

If having a mismatch between the lemma and the alternative form is such a concern, it can easily be solved by doing this:

• *plovet (Vulgar Latin, attested in the imperfect as plovēbat; see quote 2.) Nicodene (talk) 23:53, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

OMG enough, let it go. Once again: plovebat is an attested alternative form of pluebat used by Petronius in 1st century Latin literature as alternative conjugated form of pluo. it is not derived from any Vulgar Latin reconstruction *plovo. It belongs right where it is listed as an alternative form in its conjugation box, along with the Satyricon quote which shows the form in attested 1st century literary usage. Nothing more need be said. Please find something more constructive to do with your time. Inqvisitor (talk) 00:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

@Inqvisitor It is absolutely Vulgar Latin, sorry, per the overwhelming consensus of academic sources, including the one that you cited earlier (Lewis & Short). I can't believe you still have yet to accept that and that you persist in calling it 'literary'. (Does Cockney rhyming slang quoted in a Victorian play count as an example of 'Literary English'? No, no it does not.) And no, Wiktionary does not ever list single alternative forms like that within normal inflexion templates. Not a thing whatsoever, nor should it be, for the reason explained above.

If you want to continue on, kicking and screaming against the consensus of sources, that is your choice. Nicodene (talk) 00:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Whatever you want to think per your "academic sources", I don't care, it's irrelevant. Seems you don't quite understand what "Vulgar Latin" even means. Modern made-up category labels are not so clear-cut, and not important in determining whether a form exists in attested Latin or not. Now I've been more than patient with you, yet apparently wasting my time repeating myself talking in circles. Just don't mess up the entry, including the quote from Petronius and the conjugated verb form he uses in the Satyricon recorded in its proper place in the verb conjugation table. When Latin students search for "plovebat", that's exactly where the form should be found, nearly organized in its conjugation box; that's what the tables are for, that's why it's possible to add alt forms in the first place. Inqvisitor (talk) 00:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

@Inqvisitor The fact that you 'don't care' about an overwhelming consensus of academic sources, and that you suggest you know better than them all, even calling everyone who says what they say a "fool", suggests that it is time for an admin intervention.

I see nothing 'proper' about inserting an alternative non-standard form into a quadrant of a conjugation table, as you have done. That is simply not accepted practice on Wiktionary or anywhere and is completely unnecessary. Nicodene (talk) 07:03, 26 September 2022 (UTC)