Disputatio:Lingua Scotica (Teutonica)

Lemma

Amice 31.15.152.149, lemma a Lingua Scotica ad Lingua Saxonica Scoticana commutasti, dicens "Term Lingua Scotica for Scots is neologism and neologism is unscientific." But you left the footnote in place, asserting in effect that the form that Kircherus attests is the one you prefer. But did Kircherus attest that? I don't have time to check, but I easily found that Kircherus attests Scotica, here. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:12, 31 Decembris 2016 (UTC)

Also, any term referring to the Scots language is a neologism as far as classical Latin is concerned! The DMLBS does have a quotation for Scoticanus, however: "b s1445 epitaphium ‥ in lingua Gallicana ‥ hic in lingua ~a translata: [t]he michti Makar of the major munde ‥’ Plusc. XI 7." Lesgles (disputatio) 09:39, 2 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)

That's fine for "Scoticana", then. Well spotted! If moving to that name, we just need to cite the reference in a footnote. I wouldn't see any need to insert "Saxonica", though, as the anonym did: unless sourced, that very phrase is an unnecessary neologism.

If we do that, we can then happily use the simple term "Lingua Scotica" (without "(Gadelica)") for Gaelic. The anonym wanted to do that too, but didn't think of discussing first. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:47, 2 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)

The Good Old Days seem also to have given us the Ecclesia Anglicana instead of the Ecclesia Anglica. The -ana suffix had mighty powers in those days! Maybe that's why it survives as a productive grammatical element. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:00, 2 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)

Kircherus?

Usor 46.123.250.88 scribebat: "Technically we have two scottish languages, why only one lingua scotica?" But 46.123.250.88's insertion assures us that the secondary lemma is attested in Kircherus, and I'm not finding it there, nor, for that matter, is the supposed attestation of the current lemma turning up—so a little reversion and possibly temporary hiding of Kircherus seems to be in order. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 10:25, 3 Iunii 2020 (UTC)

I reverted the anonymous edit and yours. Let's not hide text.

The quotation is really there on page 212 (which is not that unhelpful website's view no. 212, in case that's what puzzled you). I am now linking to a different website on which it's easier to link to specific pages. Oddly enough, looking at the discussion above, you were the first of us to find this quotation!

I've cited it verbatim, and I've added the discretiva adjective in the best way I could, hoping thus to unruffle the anonymous editor. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:47, 3 Iunii 2020 (UTC)