Talk:valeo
Add topicLatest comment: 16 years ago by EncycloPetey
L&S says that the past participle is valitus [1]. Harris Morgan 01:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC).
- Lewis (shorter version), Langenscheit, and Wheelock all have (deprecated template usage) valitūrum. However the "Big Gold Book of Latin Verbs" agrees with L&S, and the Oxford Latin Desk Dictionary indicates no deviation from the regular pattern. --EncycloPetey 02:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'll check the OLD later at the Library. The Oxford Latin Minidictionary, has valitum and it's essentialy an abridgement so it probably reflects the big OLD. Harris Morgan 02:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC).
- Thanks, that's one I don't have yet. Looks like there's disagreement among the major sources. We may need citations for this form, and a Usage note in the meantime pointing this problem out. Oh, the joys of research! --EncycloPetey 02:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- The OLD does indeed have valitum. 501 Latin Verbs says there is no past participle. Harris Morgan 17:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC).
- Thanks, that's one I don't have yet. Looks like there's disagreement among the major sources. We may need citations for this form, and a Usage note in the meantime pointing this problem out. Oh, the joys of research! --EncycloPetey 02:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
There ain't no past passive participle. Look for any form of "valitus" in the Latin Library or via Google (hint: try a search like site:www.thelatinlibrary.com valitum"). It occurs in some medieval authors.
- If some medieval authors used it, then it exists. Our coverage of Latin includes medieval Latin. --EncycloPetey 23:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the supinum should be valitum, not valiturum (which is the active future participle)