Reconstruction talk:Latin/accatto

RFD discussion: August 2022–February 2023

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

Reconstruction:Latin/accatto

Reconstruction:Latin/accattare

Latin. @Catonif: “no reason for alt forms in reconstructed latin. classical spelling is used”. (Notifying Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, JohnC5, Benwing2, Lambiam, Mnemosientje, Nicodene): — Fenakhay ^{(حيطي · مساهماتي)} 11:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed with that reasoning. Nicodene (talk) 11:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Delete, pointless.  --Lambiam 11:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and worse, in earlier as well as later medievalish Latin accaptāre is also attested if you search for instance accaptāvit, again this problem I don’t know how the community prefers to deal with … Fay Freak (talk) 12:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

It's attested, per Niermeyer, in 856 CE. That's early enough to render any reconstructed entry unnecessary, even by my standards. Nicodene (talk) 13:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

@Nicodene: By looking accapito (which we have in the main space, though many sources treat it as reconstructed), I'm wondering if the term's original form actually comes from caput, or if this is some sort of hypercorrection by linguists (if reconstructed), or by mediaeval scribes (if attested). Hmmm... Is this unrelated? It means "to pay honour" but it's claimed descendants look quite far from that definition. Catonif (talk) 01:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@Catonif The FEW mentions but rejects that theory. Nicodene (talk) 10:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

RFD-deleted, I set the |fail=1, striking. Catonif (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)