User talk:178.4.151.103

.

Fair enough, that is apparently what the authors of that DERom article actually believe. Pace them, however, it is ludicrous. It requires assuming a millennium of failure to write down the supposedly original and persistent retundus. Mind, we have plenty of 'vulgar' texts, inscriptions, and graffiti from that millennium, including ones predating the rise of a literary standard. And yet not once (!) did such a basic word as 'round' manage to be written, in all that time, in its supposedly omnipresent oral form. I struggle to see how anyone could take the claim seriously. Nicodene (talk) 00:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@Nicodene. Three points:

1.) Thanks for admitting your mistake. And I surely don't blame you. The text isn't clear. Only the footnotes tell you in the end what exactly they mean.

2.) As to the theory, it doesn't convince me either. I wouldn't say that it's entirely impossible for a form to remain unattested for so long. It's just that the dissimilation theory is far simpler and there's no real argument against it.

3.) As to the text at lemma "rotundus", I think the "e"-theory should definitely be mentioned as it does appear to have relevant supporters. Of course, you can weight the two according to your judgment. I myself won't meddle as I'm not a big expert on Latin.

Cheers, 178.4.151.103 12:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll mention the rotundus < retundus theory with accompanying caveats. Nicodene (talk) 14:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

rfdef

Please only use this if there is real content to go along with it, such as citations. Otherwise use WT:REE to request a word you know nothing about. Equinox ◑ 21:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)