Talk:hominaticum
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Nicodene in topic Attested?
Attested?[edit]
@Nicodene Is this really attested? And what is the earliest date? Kwékwlos (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Kwékwlos The earliest example in Niermeyer[1] and DuCange[2] dates to 1035. This book refers to an example from Catalonia dating to 1020 and cautions that there appear to be no pre-11th-century examples. Nicodene (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2023 (UTC) Nicodene (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- Then this should stay in the mainspace. Kwékwlos (talk) 23:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Nicodene Is this the first time where an attested Latin term gets moved into the Reconstruction namespace? Kwékwlos (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @Kwékwlos,
- We do have at least one other example of a reconstruction whose descendants were later borrowed into Latin (and spelled like the reconstruction). Namely, *montānea. No doubt more will show up.
- I have been using the ninth century (which saw the first 'formal' cleavage between Latin and Romance) as a line of demarcation. So if a term is attested in that century, or earlier, I see no need for a reconstruction. If a term is first attested in the 11th century or later, I consider it a clear borrowing from Romance (now clearly and consistently distinguished from Latin). I'm not sure what I would do with terms first attested in the tenth century. Nicodene (talk) 22:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- ^ Niermeyer, Jan Frederik (1976) “hominaticus”, in Mediae Latinitatis Lexicon Minus, Leiden, Boston: E. J. Brill, page 491
- ^ hominaticum in Charles du Fresne du Cange’s Glossarium Mediæ et Infimæ Latinitatis (augmented edition with additions by D. P. Carpenterius, Adelungius and others, edited by Léopold Favre, 1883–1887)