Reconstruction talk:Latin/plovere
Add topicLatest comment: 1 year ago by Kwékwlos
There was a form of this verb actually attested in Petronius as plovebat (here we use plovevat). I guess, given the date, that was more in line with Classical orthography, while this entry is for a later time. Word dewd544 (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Nicodene Should we move it to the mainspace? Kwékwlos (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- The problem is that the conjugation plovēbat could, in theory, correspond to either the verb class represented by *plovĕre or that represented by *plovēre. Granted, Classical Latin pluĕre, not to mention the Romance data, strongly support *plovĕre, but still, we do not have an unambiguous attestation of it. Nicodene (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Then make plovere with ambiguous e. Kwékwlos (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Then we'd have to have an ambiguous pronunciation and notes explaining the problem. It'd be messy. Nicodene (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- I've told others and they agreed to making a namespace page here plovere#Latin. Kwékwlos (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Who, exactly? Nicodene (talk) 20:07, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Just kidding. Kwékwlos (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Who, exactly? Nicodene (talk) 20:07, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- I've told others and they agreed to making a namespace page here plovere#Latin. Kwékwlos (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Then we'd have to have an ambiguous pronunciation and notes explaining the problem. It'd be messy. Nicodene (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Then make plovere with ambiguous e. Kwékwlos (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- The problem is that the conjugation plovēbat could, in theory, correspond to either the verb class represented by *plovĕre or that represented by *plovēre. Granted, Classical Latin pluĕre, not to mention the Romance data, strongly support *plovĕre, but still, we do not have an unambiguous attestation of it. Nicodene (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)