Talk:puere

RFV discussion: May–July 2021

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.

---

puere

Latin: “vocative singular of puer”; it was previously in the declension table (see Talk:vire); is our decision to re-add or delete it? J3133 (talk) 15:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

It sounds very wrong, just as weird as *o matere and so on. Why should we re-add it? Just speedy delete and be done with this abomination.  --Lambiam 12:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Per the dictionaries mentioned at Talk:vire, and the citations they give, keep, but as the vocative of the archaic form puerus, not as the vocative of the Classical form puer. —Mahāgaja · talk 12:45, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Mahagaja, Lambiam A reminder that this is RFV, not RFD. Mahagaja's source should be enough to block speedy deletion and keep this, imo. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

OK. Yes, the form does occur, e.g. here about line 156/157, used by Simo. The nominative *puerus is apparently not attested as such, but invoked to explain this vocative.^[1]  --Lambiam 19:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• • If the nominative puerus isn't attested, we might as well simply say that puere is an archaic vocative of puer rather than inventing a new nominative singular. —Mahāgaja · talk 19:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
    1. If that voc. isn't a valid form of that 2nd declension pattern [nom./voc. -(er), gen. -(er)i, dat./abl. -(er)o], it's also not fitting to say "in this case, there's an archaic form of this declension" - it could still be heteroclitic. So it would need some good wording.
    2. Georges states: "Archaist. Nomin. puerus, Augustin. serm. 57, 6 Mai; vgl. Prisc. 6, 42: Vokat. puere, Caecil. com. 100. Afran. com. 193. Plaut. asin. 382 u.a. – Genet. Plur. puerûm, Plaut. truc. 763 Sch." According to this, the nom. is
       1. attested (albeit it might depend on edition, but that's good enough for attestion, albeit WT usually fails to name editions and credit editors for Latin),
       2. mentioned (with is sufficient for a WT:LDL like Latin).

    21:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC) — This unsigned comment was added by 2003:DE:3728:BF97:D99E:9727:58CB:80F7 (talk).

Cited. The definition is fixed and the lemma cited in puerus. --Macopre (talk) 12:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)