Quantum redactiones paginae "Disputatio:Interrete" differant
Content deleted Content added
Linea 94:
:: Well, the argument is, simply, that if you check any philological edition of ancient Roman authors, published in authoritative collections such as Scriptorum classicorum bibliotheca Oxoniensis or Bibliotheca Teubneriana, you'll find only ''conectere''. We scarcely have any better informants than philological editions of classical authors. [[Usor:Neander|Neander]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Neander|disputatio]]) 21:01, 6 Maii 2020 (UTC)
::: Indeed, when you had raised the point I had done a quick research and, with some surprise, I had found too that philological editions tend to prefer ''conectere'', ''conubium'', etc (with some exceptions though). However, given that unless you find it in an inscription, writing ''conectere'' instead of ''connectere'' is nothing more than an editorial choice, I wonder what reason could motivate editors to prefer ''conectere''. From what I know of Latin phonology and orthography I would think of it as nothing more than a misspelling. But I think that this can be a very good question for any linguist who happens to read this discussion. --[[Usor:Grufo|Grufo]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Grufo|disputatio]]) 00:07, 7 Maii 2020 (UTC)
I agree. But the phenomenon is way too widespread to be an irrational editorial choice of a type involving misspelling. Instead of this, I'd suggest that the reason might be etymological. For example, ''nectere'' has been connected to ''nere'' < *''snē-'' (Persson, ''Beiträge'' 1912: 815A). Thus, *''com-snegh-'' > *''co-znegh-'' > *''
:::: Iam HABEMUS verbum, i.e. ''interrete''. Hoc maximi momenti est! Neque lingua Hebraica moderna omnia verba nova etymologice perfecta sunt - sed solum, quod momenti maioris sit, est USUS activus! Et diu iam homines utuntur voce INTERRETIS. Noli artificiose complicare res, quaeso! [[Usor:Giorno2|Giorno2]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Giorno2|disputatio]])
:::::Cum Giorno2 consentio.
| |||