Talk:Appendix Probi

Comments

I added a "disputed" tag because I don't believe the date of 7th or 8th c. AD is quite correct.

It's true that here, for example:

[1]

they also give a date of 7th or 8th c. AD, and this source is recent. But as phrased in the article, it's extremely misleading -- 7th or 8th c. AD is the date of the manuscript, not necessarily when the text itself was composed. On linguistic grounds, a date of 7th or 8th c. AD for the time of composition seems way too late to me. Benwing (talk) 10:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

All these Romance/Latin articles suffer from this same fault. French does not begin with its first written documents, etc. Nothing to do but weed these places out and rephrase, but typically the same editor or editors makes a number of other faulty assumptions as well, so it isn't a small job.Dave (talk) 09:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the translation of the name from "appendix of Probus" to "appendix to Probus" to make clear that the work is (almost) certainly not by Valerius Probus.

86.220.106.158 (talk) 17:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

It couldn't be appendix to Probus, because to Probus would require a dative. Probi is genitive, not dative. Fortunately, 70.68.24.224 fixed this. (If I may be so bold as to speculate blindly, perhaps "probi" is actually a substantive adjective, rather than a name. "Proper man's appendix" perhaps?) AutisticCatnip (talk) 07:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

"the fact that this was a common spelling error suggests that word-final M had become silent" is wrong. In Classical Latin, a word-final m indicated a nasal. There was no m consonant to "become silent." I'm going to edit the article to reflect the actual fact that the vowels were becoming denasalized, but this indicates that the article might contain other, less obvious errors. AutisticCatnip (talk) 07:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Appendix Probi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110524174640/http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/index.php?title=Marcus_Valerius_Probus&oldid=1564 to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/index.php?title=Marcus_Valerius_Probus&oldid=1564

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:48, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Whose edits and textual criticism?

From the article: Scribal abbreviations have been expanded and some forms have been edited according to textual criticism.

This needs clarification. Does this mean that the seventh-century scribes might have changed it? Or Elcock 1960? Or the Wikipedia editor? And whose textual criticisms? Who expanded the abbreviations, etc.? Omc (talk) 15:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

All of the spellings are per Elcock, as I recall. Beyond that, I don't know. Nicodene (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I agree it needs clarification. I added that note based on my careless first reading of Powell 2007 ("A New Text of the "Appendix Probi"). After rereading that source more closely, the following phenomena should be distinguished: (a) the single actual manuscript includes some in-text corrections, such as polla being corrected to poella by adding a supralinear e; (b) Elcock's version of the list expands scribal abbreviations found in the original such as & (in u&ulus) and ñ (for non). As for textual criticism, Powell comments that "The item to the right is 149, which, though the editors transcribe it confidently as persica non pessica, I could not read with any confidence; the left-hand side was completely obscure, while the first letter of the right-hand side seemed to be a b rather than a p" (page 689).--Urszag (talk) 04:08, 2 March 2023 (UTC)