Talk:Latin verb paradigms

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LatinWikipedia:WikiProject LatinTemplate:WikiProject LatinLatin articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Linguistics Low‑importance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rare supines

@Kanjuzi is the section on rare supines sufficient with the presented examples, or do you see the need to cite papers and books regarding supine analysis? Daniel Couto Vale (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would say you definitely need to cite books such as Gildersleeve and Lodge's grammar (or another standard work such as the Lateinische Grammatik of Leumann-Hofmann-Szantyr). Gildersleeve and Lodge say nothing about the supine having a dative or a genitive. (The example you cite from Manilius is in any case not a genitive.) As far as I know, although the form of 4th-declension verba nouns such as receptus and partus resembles that of the supine, such nouns are not usually referred to as supines. The title "Rare supines" is also a little odd, since such words are not particularly rare. Kanjuzi (talk) 07:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rating

@Johnsoniensis: I'm quite astonished that you have awarded the article Latin verb paradigms class B. What criteria does it possibly fulfil? It cites only one modern work, a school dictionary. Terms such as "imperative indirect active", "participle present genitive", etc. are completely unorthodox and seem to be the writer's own invention. The terms "supine genitive" and "supine dative" are unknown in standard grammars. The agreement paradigms table contains no indication of the meaning of the various forms or of what is meant by "1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6" at the top. There are also errors, e.g. according to the table, "visuro" is supposed to be a "participle past nominative".

In the section "Events in periphrases", the phrase "victūs (sic) adest conjunx" is supposed to contain a genitive supine, where the scansion shows that "victus" is in fact a nominative participle. The sentence does not mean "Your partner is about to win. Why do you waste time mourning?" but "Your defeated husband is here. Why do you waste time when you could be mourning?" In the next examples, "grāvidae", "quīdem", "partūs", "mūlier", "periclitābātur" all have wrong quantities: basically the writer has only a very elementary knowledge of Latin. His assertion that there are "two major types of agreement paradigms" ignores cases, which is surely a third type. To call this article a "B" is a complete travesty. As far as I can see it is at present still only at Start class standard and needs a great deal more work to make it even class C. Kanjuzi (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say this article is only Start class, for the reason that no proper authorities are cited. The writer hasn't even made the corrections suggested above! And if any examples have a correct translation, it is only because they have been copied directly from the article Latin tenses. Kanjuzi (talk) 13:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]