Talk:erint

RFV discussion: November 2017–January 2019

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.

---

erint

Although in its current form this is an obvious bot error, there seems to be usage out there under some other definition (for instance, here, here and here), so I changed this from a speedy delete to an rfv. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Mentionings:

[Edit: See erint#Further reading | Lachmann which should refer to Karl Lachmann would be missing.]

Dictionaries like L&S or Georges however do not seem to have this form. Maybe they rejected it as misspelling?

With more searching "erint" as some form of "erunt" should be attestable (cp. the refs given by the mentionings) and may it be only in a few inscriptions or manuscripts.

As for the sources given in OP's post: "sint et erint" in a Latin text from 1606 in an English book could mean "are and will be". The Latin text in the Romance dictionary has "... erint .. erunt ..." which looks somewhat strange, but maybe it's explainable by time (in older times spelling varied more often).

• CIL 4, 7989

   [Notes:   1. Published in the part Supplementi pars III: Inscriptiones Pompeianae Herculanenses parietariae et vasorum fictilium from 1952-1970?   2. Maybe also cp.: [1] ([2] has ERUNT)]

  • [Edit: For cites based on it see erint]
• CIL 5, 6693, line 12 (Corpus inscriptionum latinarum. Consilio et auctoritate Academiae litterarum regiae borussicae editum. Voluminis quinti pars posterior. Adiectae sunt tabulae geographicae duae – Inscriptiones Galliae cisalpinae latinae. Consilio et auctoritate Academiae litterarum regiae borussicae edidit Theodorus Mommsen. Pars posterior inscriptiones regionum Italiae undecimae et nonae comprehendens, Berlin, 1877, p. 740):

  QVIS · LACRIMAE · NVNQVAM · POTERINT · SEDARE · DOLOREM

"POTERINT" (cp. poterint which isn't mentioned in possum) is cited and with the proper CIL 4 text "ERINT" should be cited too. Without the proper CIL 4 text, the texts based on it could be used and should attest "erint". As for the note "Sabbatini Tumolesi observes that erint is likely simply a misreading for erunt": Instead of misreading (which would mean the CIL editors made an error), it could be correct representation of the inscription but be a misspelling (which would mean some ancient guy made an error) or - maybe less likely - be a non-common alt form. - -84.161.40.68 21:50, 25 November 2017 (UTC), 84.161.2.104 05:49-06:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

RFV passed as an alternate/misspelling. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 11:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)