Talk:cotidie
Latest comment: 3 months ago by Sartma
@Urszag: Hi! I've seen your correction to my edit, but I was wondering: is the disputed line, usually edited away, in Catullus 68 the only example of a possible "cōtīdiē"? If that's the case, is it not a bit too little and too week evidence, especially considering that cotīdiē never has ō? — Sartma 【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】 17:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- The PedeCerto database of hexameter/pentameter lines shows three examples in late Latin poetry: one in Anthologia Latina 128 Riese ("ANTH. Lat. 128, 10 Ḗt dĕdĕrī́t quǣstū́s cṓttĭdĭā́nă Vĕnús,"), two in "carmina epigraphica" ("CE CLE 00629, 9 Cṓttĭdĭḗ flētū́s dāt, ḗt īn pḗctŏrĕ pā́lmas.", "CE CLE 01424, 10 Cṓttĭdĭā́nă tĭbī́ lū́cră fŭḗrĕ d(ĕú)s."). PedeCerto gives these spellings with -tt-, and presumably we can be confident in the original spelling in the case of the epigraphic poems. Of course, metrically /koːti/ and /kotti/ are equivalent.--Urszag (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Urszag: I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to prove with those examples. PedeCerto gives the length of syllables, not of vowels. That's why you have ēt for ĕt, dĕdĕrīt for dĕdĕrĭt, lūcră for lŭcră, pēctŏrĕ for pĕctŏrĕ, and so on. None of those vowels are long there: the macron only shows that the syllable is long.
- The examples you gave are not a proof that "cotīdiē" had an ō. — Sartma 【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】 09:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think it's possible to prove that the word could have a long vowel in the first syllable: I think any evidence for that will be equally consistent with it being pronounced with a long consonant preceded by a short vowel. However, given the uncertainty about the source of the consonant length, and the presence of alternations between short vowel + long consonant and long vowel + short consonant in other words (e.g. the lītera/littera type), I don't think it's possible to conclude with certainty that the vowel was never long, either. Lindsay (The Latin Language 1894:560), when listing three or so competing hypotheses about the origin of the form, says that "Some [derive the first portion from] quō-tus, a correlative of tōtus (cf. totos dies, Plaut. Aul. 73; totis horis, Mil. 212)". If a note is left about the pronunciation, I don't oppose replacing ō̆ with o in the headline.--Urszag (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Urszag: I would definitely keep the note about the pronunciation, I wasn't suggesting deleting it. It's all very pertinent information.
- I do understand the reasoning based on other words like littera/lītera, but in the light of Martial's epigramma 10.65 «Lēvis drōpace tū cotīdiānō», with clearly short o, I just don't think we have enough real proofs to formalise an ō̆ with such certainty in the headline. — Sartma 【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】 11:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think it's possible to prove that the word could have a long vowel in the first syllable: I think any evidence for that will be equally consistent with it being pronounced with a long consonant preceded by a short vowel. However, given the uncertainty about the source of the consonant length, and the presence of alternations between short vowel + long consonant and long vowel + short consonant in other words (e.g. the lītera/littera type), I don't think it's possible to conclude with certainty that the vowel was never long, either. Lindsay (The Latin Language 1894:560), when listing three or so competing hypotheses about the origin of the form, says that "Some [derive the first portion from] quō-tus, a correlative of tōtus (cf. totos dies, Plaut. Aul. 73; totis horis, Mil. 212)". If a note is left about the pronunciation, I don't oppose replacing ō̆ with o in the headline.--Urszag (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)