Talk:odio

@Biolongvistul In your latest edit you've effectively reverted my edits here. Please justify adding back these labels: where is the verb attested in Old Latin? Where precisely has it been proscribed, or even as much as mentioned during the Classical period (excepting the Cicero quote, which to my current mind is more likely a simple hypercorrection of the then-current contraction audīvī > audī :: X > ōdīvī where X = ōdī)? Currently we use the Vulgar Latin label for reconstructors as an intermediate moniker for the reconstructed, non-attested Proto-Romance - this word, however, is amply attested. Supposing you're useing the label as a replacement for the "non-standard/dialectal/popular" label, where exactly is its non-standard/dialectal character evident, when it's used by such technical/Classicising writers as Jerome and Boethius? What's more, all but the present imperfect declensions are prescribed - instead of proscribed - by the 4th-century grammarian Charisius. I've seen no remarks on these or other forms from other grammarians - for all we know these might have been learned and/or technical forms. I don't believe any label is justified but the "Latin Latin" which was there before your edit. That label is enough to indicate that the form doesn't belong to the Classical period while being common in written Late Latin. Brutal Russian (talk) 04:17, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I’m sorry. I hadn’t noticed your edits and thought that I had just left the page like that after adding the quotations. The Old Latin label, undoubtedly, is directly justified by Festus—Gracchus lived in the second century BC. As for the others, yeah, you’re right. The proscribed label was just overzealousness on my part (somehow I was under the impression that Cicero was highlighting a solecism on the other person’s part). The Vulgar Latin label I used exactly in the way you supposed I did—I’m going to have to adjust a few of my pages in light of the new info. Also, I think you’d agree that I switched the entry over to the fourth conjugation, as confirmed by the TLL.
Keep doing what you’re doing, I seriously appreciate editor interaction. --Biolongvistul (talk) 09:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

@Biolongvistul ~Oh, the Festus~Gracchus quote is actually entirely unrelated, because 1) it's about ōsī sunt and 2) ab odiō meas "from 'dislike", i.e. it's a form of odium, because citation forms as a rule fully included in the syntax in Latin, and if there are uses with a bare verb such as "ab verb" anywhere, it's certainly impossible if the verb's form coincides with that of a noun. The normal way to introduce citation forms for non-declinables are 1) with id quod, as in the same Paulus ex Festo: Hostia dicta est ab eo, quod est hostire ferire 2) using the Greek article τό (this in fact became the norm at some point). I'm going to move that quotation to the right entry. ~About the fourth declension, actually the verb is currently of the 3d declension and it was you who changed it from the 4th - citing the same Charisius! :-)) I'm fixing this too. ~Concerning Vulgar Latin, it's not an official guideline so far because it kind of requires a major revamp of the whole system, together with renaming the entity from that monstrosity of a term to "Proto-Romance". But if you're going to meet attested Latin words that seem unclassical, I'd appreciate it if you file it under Late Latin or at least something like "non-standard"/"dialectal", like we do with all other languages (and not e.g. "Dirty Spanish"). ~Thanks for the appreciation, I will! :D Brutal Russian (talk) 10:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)