Disputatio:Thema verbi

I'm a bit worried about this article. Firstly, I doubt that averbo is an established noun in Latin. Etymologically, it comes from the a verbo construction: If we are to inflect, say, a German strong verb a verbo, we say gehen ging gegangen. So, as a construction, a verbo is somewhat comparable with a litteris 'secretary' etc. Secondly, given (argumenti causa) that averbo can be accepted as a noun useful enough in grammatical description, it must methinks be treated like pondo, i.e., as an indeclinable hybrid noun, practically a lexicalised adverb. Thirdly, I'm wondering whether the article sets out from a well-understood definition of this term. As far as I understand, inflecting a verbo is tantamount to giving a set of thematic forms which suffice to identify the paradigmatic system of a given verb. For instance, all forms of the verb (lemma) SECO can be identified and enumerated by the thematic form series seco, secui, sectum, secare. Fourthly, we seem to need a more general term which captures both a verbo and "a nomine": to be able to inflect, say, litus we also need the form litoris, etc. --Neander 20:58, 18 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Hans Orberg calls these Themata verborum: thema praesenstis, thema perfecti, and thema supini. Paraphrasing Orberg almost directly: Thema dicitur ea verbi pars quae non mutatur in flexione.--Rafaelgarcia 01:34, 19 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Gratias ago, o Rafael, quod pro me hanc rem correxisti! --Neander 22:06, 19 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Mea delicia, Neander!--Rafaelgarcia 23:36, 19 Iunii 2007 (UTC)