Reconstruction talk:Latin/lausa
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion (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.
Duplicate of attested lausa. Its being only found in Middle Latin in the 14th century does not justify that there be another entry with descendants in the reconstruction namespace, even if we positively knew that that Middle Latin word is reborrowed from Romance. In that case one just has to say that the attested forms are reborrowed, but for convenience all should be in the main namespace. Furthermore it is attested in Plautus as quoted. The manuscript(s) having lausum is irrelevant because the deviation is only in the ending, a part that gets altered for lemmatization anyways; plus one does not need to posit a rule that for attestation only the manuscript form counts and not its reading (the former would lead to many absurd results); an existing reading is enough, commonness of a form is of no significance to Wiktionary; alternatively in Plautus there is a neuter form of the word lausum, -ī n from which Romance descends via the plural, as so common (like in poire): I will write this as an alternative in the etymology, since that is attested too – as I said, one and the same word in the same text can attested multiple forms, like in the case of sambūcum. All thought through by me and held to be most correct: ⁓⁓ Fay Freak (talk) 12:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note to readers: there is also a parallel discussion at WT:Requests for verification/Non-English#lausa. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Hold. This RFD functionally needs to be put on hold until the RFV is resolved, since if lausa is not attested and fails RFV, the rationale for deleting the reconstruction entry does not hold. - -sche (discuss) 18:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)- I have been able to cite lausa (amply, as it turns out; I added three citations to the RFVN discussion and a link to at least two more). Assuming the citations don't have problems and the main-namespace page lausa passes RFV, I think the reconstruction could be deleted, although more input from other Latin speakers would be helpful... - -sche (discuss) 19:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- No consensus to delete. We can't attest the Vulgar Latin, and the Plautus is contested (in which cases, for ancient languages, we usually present both perspectives). So while having both a reconstructed and a mainspace entry for the same word may seem unorthodox, I think it fits the situation. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:25, 22 March 2020 (UTC)