Talk:coniugens

@Urszag what to do with the etymology here? Is this a late form? This, that and the other (talk) 03:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@This, that and the other: It should be marked as an alt-form of coniungēns, if genuine attestations can be added. It isn't regularly formed from either coniugō, coniugāre or coniungō, coniungere, and those are the main verb forms used. There are 11 hits in Corpus Corporum for coniugen*, one of which is a present participle form: "Johannes Bollandus, Acta Sanctorum, Maius 6 (1688): DIE VIGESIMA SEXTA MAII , CAPUT VI. 45. Orationi interfuit Philippus; precabatur ille loco abdito, ibique se Deo coniugens, totus extra se rapitur; lapidisque instar factus, apertis oculis hilarique uultu sanctissimum Eucharistiae Sacramentum intueri uidebatur." But some Google Books versions of this passage use the "ng" spelling. It's tricky to exclude false-positive spellings like coniũgens when looking for examples. There's a reasonable amount of Google Books hits but the first one I checked was this type of false positive.--Urszag (talk) 04:05, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Urszag if it's okay I'll leave it in your hands. Thanks. This, that and the other (talk) 04:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)