Talk:sophos

References

@I'm so meta even this acronym: What is going on with the reference sections here? I don't even know what to do. —JohnC5 15:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@JohnC5: I think the first references section is there to back up the first etymology. It's all rather excessive, I do agree. I haven't the time or patience to deal with it now. I'll stick this page on my watchlist and deal with it at some point, unless someone beats me to it. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@I'm so meta even this acronym: I sucked it up and just did it. Thanks for the advice. —JohnC5 15:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@JohnC5: It wasn't much advice, but thanks. I didn't notice that the entry used to have four references sections. Crazy stuff. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

RFV discussion: April–June 2017

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

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

---

sophos, sophus

Most of the references have it as masculine only, which would mean that feminine sophē or sopha, neuter sophon and sophum either don't exist or are ML or NL. Furthermore: Wiktionary has it as adjective which can be used substantively, while most references have it as substantive which can be used adjectively. This could explain the lack of feminine and neuter forms. The "A new Latin-English school-lexicon" (Philadelphia, 1867) by G. R. Crooks and A. J. Schem exceptionally has "SŎPHOS, or SŎPHUS, a, um, adj. [= σοφός]. (Lat.) Wise (pure Latin, sapiens)".
Additional RFC matters for sophos:

• The entry has feminine sopha in the header but feminine sophē in the declension table. This is contradicting.
• It has the meaning "(substantive) A wise man, a sage." which lacks the gender of the substantive. Well, it's masculine and it might be quite obvious, but it's not mentioned.

-80.133.99.90 21:37, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Dictionaries give the following sources:

For the noun: Mart. 7, 32, 4 with sophos. It's nominative singular (see sophos), that is, the given reference {{Q|la|Martial}} once in sophus doesn't attest it.
DMLBS gives some other cites, but "sophorum" could belong to both sophos or sophus, and sophos could be nominative singular or accusative plural [ie. sophōs] of sophos or sophus (similary with sofos). Except from a mentioning, DMLBS doesn't have a cite which undoubtly would belong to sophus and not sophos. With the mentioning, an inflected form like sophōrum or sophōs, and a note as now in sophus there could be an entry for the noun - or not?

For the adjective: Phaedr. 3, 14, 9 and 4, 15 or 17 (it's 18 at TLL), 8 with sophus. At TLL both places have "sophus" in it, so the dictionaries did not change the case (which they sometimes do).
DMLBS only cites Ælfric Bata for the adjective. In Early Scholastic Colloquies which DMLBS mentions as a source it is: "Consultius est uobis esse sophos quam stolidos et <h>ebetes uel inertes et ignaros." For the text in Anglo-Saxon Conversations see sophus. With vobis, inertes, hebetes and stolidos (from Latin stolidus and not from Greek) it's accusative plural sophos [ie. sophōs] which could belong to both sophus and *sophos. As there is the adjective sophus and ATM no source for sophos, it is better placed in sophus. As for the feminine and neuter I've added a note in sophus, and in this way the forms could stay - or not?

To sum it up: A noun sophos is attested, and a noun sophus is kinda attested in medieval Latin. For the feminine and the neuter forms of the adjective sophus there now is a note. The adjective sophos with it's contradicting feminines is unattested for more than a month, and should go.
The entries should be ok now. -84.161.56.213 03:05-04:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC) and 16:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)