Talk:coepi
Add topicLatest comment: 7 years ago by GuitarDudeness
@JohnC5: Why is this page? Even more with these forms as present tenses... -GuitarDudeness (talk) 16:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- @GuitarDudeness: What is your question? —JohnC5 18:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- @JohnC5:: What is the need for this page? Where are these forms present tense? -GuitarDudeness (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- @GuitarDudeness: coepī, like ōdī and meminī, is highly defective and appears almost exclusively in the perfect. The present forms are much later. —JohnC5 19:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- @JohnC5:: But this page wrongly gives these perfect forms as present tenses etc.. And truly the present forms are ante- and post-classical. But that is all on the coepio page. The coepio page correctly has the full verb with indication of preferred classical suppletion by incipio etc. This page is not needed. -GuitarDudeness (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- @GuitarDudeness: [1]. —JohnC5 19:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- @JohnC5: Compare that with what we have on the page: present for perfect, imperfect for pluperfect, future for future perfect etc.. And these three are not the same, as noted in your reference, "The Perfect, Pluperfect, and Future Perfect of ōdī and meminī have the meanings of a Present, Imperfect, and Future respectively". That this is not for coepio, is my whole point. Coepio is one regular verb simply with suppletion by incipio preferred in classical times. -GuitarDudeness (talk) 20:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- @GuitarDudeness: you're right that the entry has to be changed; however I'm afraid the case of coepī is rather more complex than you make it sound, and I wouldn't be surprised to find imperfective uses for the perfect. Just take a look at the literature: [2], [3], [4]. If anything, we shouldn't be removing information but adding it, in this case. --Barytonesis (talk) 20:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Barytonesis:: What would we remove? But you would be removing Plautus's attestations of the present tenses by saying in the page of coepio that it is from Late Latin. It would be ante- and post-classical. -GuitarDudeness (talk) 20:56, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Barytonesis:: Saw the change...better. But why the insistence in keeping one separate page just for the use of this or that case in classical times? Why is not my Usage note on coepio enough for that? -GuitarDudeness (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- @GuitarDudeness: you're right that the entry has to be changed; however I'm afraid the case of coepī is rather more complex than you make it sound, and I wouldn't be surprised to find imperfective uses for the perfect. Just take a look at the literature: [2], [3], [4]. If anything, we shouldn't be removing information but adding it, in this case. --Barytonesis (talk) 20:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- @JohnC5: Compare that with what we have on the page: present for perfect, imperfect for pluperfect, future for future perfect etc.. And these three are not the same, as noted in your reference, "The Perfect, Pluperfect, and Future Perfect of ōdī and meminī have the meanings of a Present, Imperfect, and Future respectively". That this is not for coepio, is my whole point. Coepio is one regular verb simply with suppletion by incipio preferred in classical times. -GuitarDudeness (talk) 20:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- @GuitarDudeness: [1]. —JohnC5 19:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- @JohnC5:: But this page wrongly gives these perfect forms as present tenses etc.. And truly the present forms are ante- and post-classical. But that is all on the coepio page. The coepio page correctly has the full verb with indication of preferred classical suppletion by incipio etc. This page is not needed. -GuitarDudeness (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- @GuitarDudeness: coepī, like ōdī and meminī, is highly defective and appears almost exclusively in the perfect. The present forms are much later. —JohnC5 19:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- @JohnC5:: What is the need for this page? Where are these forms present tense? -GuitarDudeness (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)