Talk:illic

=template error

As established on Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification, the illūc neuter ablative generated by the template is almost certainly erroneous (should be illōc). AnonMoos (talk) 09:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

RFV discussion: March 2017–March 2019

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

illic and istic

For the inflection, as sometimes the templates in Wiktionary create incorrect forms.

• Dictionaries seem not to mention a genitive or dative singular or most of the plural forms.
• Allen and Greenough's grammar has only nom. sg., acc. sg., abl. sg. and neuter nom. and acc. pl., which might mean other forms are unattested.
• Imman. Joh. Gerh. Scheller's grammar has similar forms as Allen and Greenough, without genitive and dative singular and without many plural forms too.
  BTW: He mentions alternative forms with h for istic, as isthic, isthaec, isthoc which might be Medieval or New Latin alternative forms. L&S has "istic (not isthic), aec, oc, and uc" (bolding added).
• T. Hewitt Key's grammar has illic with gen. illiusce (ilius + -ce), and dat. illic but as "D*. illic, illic, illic." with the note "* The dative illic is only used as an adverb.". In the plural he has different forms than Wiktionary. Wiktionary's plural of illic resembles the plural of ille, except of some neuter forms. Key's forms often resembles the plural of ille + -ce, with some exceptions. He has dat. and abl. of all genders illisce (illis + -ce), nom. illice (illi + -ce) / illaec / illaec, acc. illosce (illos + -ce) / illasce (illas + -ce) / illaec, gen. illorunc / illarunc / illorunc (-or- and -ar- as in -orum and -arum but with -unc from acc. sg. instead of -um?). In an addition he says, that to the forms ending with c an e might be added as illunce.
  Some forms with -ce are also mentioned by others, e.g. by Allen and Greenough who give illiusce, isce as examples, but not as forms of illic.
• Wiktionary's forms in the singular could be formed in analogy with hic, but that doesn't attest forms for illic and istic. In the plural many forms should come from bare ille/iste without the -ce or -c part, which doesn't attest forms for illic and istic too.

So it might be that Allen and Greenough and Scheller are correct. Forms of ille and iste are forms of illeand iste and not of illic and istic. Forms of ille with -ce could be mentioned in a usage note, as related terms or as see also in illic. -84.161.18.15 02:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

84.161.18.15 -- as far as I can tell, the templates are just applying the basic inflectional pattern for "hic" to these words (except the non-oblique neuter singular of illic is given as illuc instead of illoc). The most obviously fishy-looking one is illūc for neuter ablative, since the neuter is normally the same as the masculine in cases other than nominative, accusative, and vocative -- but I don't know what is and isn't actually attested in ancient texts for these words... AnonMoos (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

That does better explain Wiktionary's forms, but doesn't change much:

• illī as plural of illic looks like illī from ille.
• many forms should be unattested, namely genitive and dative singular and most plural forms except the neuter forms illaec and istaec. An Allen & Greenough: archive.org/stream/allengreenoughsn00alleiala#page/66/mode/2up (p. 67) - which BTW has neuter abl. illōc and istōc.

-84.161.4.63 22:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, then neuter ablative illūc on the illic page is most definitely an error. The others are merely extrapolations -- and such templates do a lot of extrapolating all the time (whenever there's some combination of verb person/number/tense/voice/mood or noun number/case or adjective gender/number/case which doesn't happen to be attested in ancient texts). AnonMoos (talk) 09:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

In case of nouns and verbs one often can 'extrapolate' forms, but even for that there are exceptions, and extrapolating forms of 'normal' nouns and verbs is different from extrapolating pronoun forms. In case of nouns and verbs, one can compare words: For example one can compare laudare and amare, so one can assume a form laudat if one finds amat. But what word could be used to compare it with illic and istic? illic and istic come from -ce - but hic? The c in hic might be related to -ce, but that doesn't mean that it's obviously related or that hic is considered to have -ce in it. As Allen and Greenough mention terms like "hûiusce" (hujus + ce) and "hunce", hic maybe wasn't seen to be formed as some term suffixed with -ce. Also illī is already the plural of ille and istī is already the plural of iste, while for hīc with plural hī there's no *he with plural *hī. So hic is different from illic and istic. -84.161.19.68 18:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

A reference for the inflection with three cases got added, and more older ones could easily be added:

• 1861, Lewis Marcus, A Latin grammar, London, page 26 - it explains the etymology as is + hic and ille + hic
• 1854, Peter Bullions, The Principles of Latin Grammar, New York, page 77 - explains it as ille and iste + hic
• 1790, Imman. Joh. Gerh. Schellers ausführliche lateinische Sprachlehre oder sogenannte Grammatik, 3rd edition, Leipzig, page 122 - also explains it as ille and iste + hic, and mentions isthic
• 1862, T. Hewitt Key, A Latin Grammar, London, page 50 and 51 - gives full inflection but has different forms than wiktionary and suppletively adds forms with complete -ce like illiusce for genitive

By google book search it seems that 21st century grammars do not mention these pronouns - which underlines the fact that 21st century grammars are incomplete. -84.161.16.196 00:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I've added usage notes regarding the forms with -ce and furthermore replaced the incorrect table at illic with the forms found in Allen & Greenough. Since this was enough for you (nominator) to revoke your nomination in the case of istic, where you did the same 1.5 years ago, I'm going to be bold and remove the RFV at illic as well by the same logic and assume you're okay with that. Considering this RFV resolved; inflection tables replaced with more reliable ones and relevant usage notes added; also deleted istuius, istujus, istuic, illuius, illujus, illuic. This has sat here without anything happening for long enough. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 10:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Stress incorrectly marked

The stress is also not correctly marked, these latin adverbs had the stress on the last syllabeː /il'liːk/, /il'laːk/. See the romance descendants. I couldn't correct it because the transcription is generated by a template. --El Mexicano (talk) 16:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)