Talk:insignis

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.

Latin adjective. Lewis and Short only have it as the genitive of the noun insigne. Needs massive cleanup if OK. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

The neuter nominative of Latin adjectives and participles are often substantivized to act as nouns; in Latin, a substantivized adjective is the equivalent of, and may replace, a noun. Latin "insigne" is a noun which is in reality a substantivized adjective, as is clear from the morphology thereof. It is derived from "insignis", rather than the obverse, much in the same way that the noun "actum" is substantivized from "actus", the perfect passive participle of the verb "ago". I would be surprised to see that Lewis and Short, a copy of which I do not have, held "insignis" to be a derivative of "insigne", if, indeed, that is what is being claimed. — This unsigned comment was added by 144.121.24.154 (talk).

Allen and Greenough in section 289 describe the use nominally of substantivized neuter adjectives. — This unsigned comment was added by 144.121.24.154 (talk).

Gildersleeve and Lodge on page 134 of their Latin Grammar describe substantivization of "secondary" adjectives in the neuter. — This unsigned comment was added by 144.121.24.154 (talk).

Cassell's Latin Dictionary presents "insigne" as a noun. Of course, as shown in the grammars, as cited above, it is in reality a substantivized adjective. If Lewis and Short do not list "insigne" as a noun, then I would argue that it is remiss. — This unsigned comment was added by 144.121.24.154 (talk).

Wheelock's Grammar has only a brief discussion of adjectival substantivization, in chapter 4, page 35 in my copy, but it does not deal with nominalization from the adjectival neuter. — This unsigned comment was added by 144.121.24.154 (talk).

The Cassell Latin Dictionary shows the etymology of "insignis" to be: "(in/signum)", supporting the idea that "insignis" is derived from "signum", rather than from "insigne", and that "insigne" is nominalized from the neuter form of "insignis". — This unsigned comment was added by 144.121.24.154 (talk).

This is a lot of bludgeoning that isn't really even addressing the points. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 18:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

If "insigne" was maintained to be the origin of "insignis", then "insigne" itself would have to be derived from "signum" with a suffixation of "-e", but this cannot be, because "-e" represents only the vocative masculine singular declentive of adjectives in "-us", or is the suffix used to form adverbs (with the macron, of course). The "-e" of "insigne" is, rather, a declentive form, forming the neuter nominative, accusative and vocative of adjectives in "-is", it is not a suffixation. — This unsigned comment was added by 144.121.24.154 (talk).

I have tried to address, hopefully with success" the notion that "insignis" exists as a declentive if "insigne", which I thought was being suggested. I began working on the "insignis" page because I found that the existing page did little to promote understanding of this adjective beyond what Cassell's and other basic Latin-English dictionaries do, such as identifying what may be modified in the sentence by it, and I wished to improve the resource. wiktionary seems to be in a unique position of being able to provide full understanding of a term, in such a way as is beyond the scope of a paper dictionary.

Having never attempted it, I am unfamiliar with how to properly attest and cite sources in Wiktionary (which I have found very helpful, by the way). I will try to read up on that in the coming days. If more specific instances can be presented where attestation is deemed wanting, I will try to either provide such attestation or will delete that section of the page. Thanks, and, by the way, my name is Michael. — This unsigned comment was added by 144.121.24.154 (talk).

I don’t understand the basis for the statement “Lewis and Short only have it as the genitive of the noun insigne.” See “insignis”, in Charlton T. Lewis and Charles Short (1879) A Latin Dictionary, Oxford: Clarendon Press. This is a full-fledged entry that starts – as one would expect – with the line “insignis, e, adj. in-signum,” followed by a definition and lots of attestations. We see the same at insignis in Gaffiot, Félix (1934) Dictionnaire illustré latin-français, Hachette.. Both dictionaries indicate that the noun insigne comes from this adjective. The genitive singular of insignis coincides in form for all genders, and therefore also for the neuter insigne, with the masculine/feminine nominative.  --Lambiam 19:17, 25 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

• Hi, this is Mike. I want to thank Lambiam for the clarification of that. I do not own a copy of Lewis and Short's Dictionary, and I was so shocked (and made incredulous) by the initial assertion here that I was thrown into a bit of a "fit" of verification, as can be discerned above. I went to the "drawing board" with a clean sheet of paper and a pencil this morning in an effort to trim, consolidate, and otherwise reorganize my thoughts about this page, and so to render it more concise and to bring it into conformity. This was almost immediately fruitful, as I was able to remove much material relating to the meaning of "to signify"/"significare", which acts upon the sign itself, rather than that which bears a sign or is indicated by a sign (those things described by insignis). It seems much cleaner now. If anyone notices a need for attestation, please note that here, and I will try to provide it. Much better now, but certainly a work in progress…
  I certainly want to avoid being “disruptive” to a source (Wiktionary) which I have often found both helpful and inspiring. Originally, I was having a lot of trouble with fully understanding “insignis”, especially in reconciling the usual translations in light of the etymology thereof. I could find no extensive treatments of the word in any grammar available to me, or anywhere on “Google Books”. The dictionaries that I consulted, of which Wiktionary was one, gave no indications about the word’s ability to modify either the bearer of a sign or that which is indicated by a sign. That I had to discern by inspecting quotations from the literature. I also could not thereby discern the differing categories of sense (as I discern them) between “indicated” and “differentiated” as pertains to how “insignis” seems to be able to describe the bearer of a sign. For these reasons, I was originally moved to improve this page because it did not, in its original state, deal with these aspects of the word (indeed, I could find no source that did), and I desired a more explicit treatment of them for the benefit of all. — This unsigned comment was added by 144.121.24.154 (talk).

No thanks are required. I wonder, though, why you did not simply click the link to L&S online provided in the References section.  --Lambiam 16:04, 27 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Oh, no need to wonder, Lambiam...sometimes I am just stoopid! By the way, SemperBlotto was absolutely correct in his initial criticisms. My additions were quite confused and overly wordy. It took me some time to work out how to present what I wanted to here.

The IP has provided quotes copiously, dispelling doubts about the term’s existence, so this is RFV passed, and I have pruned it to tolerable size. Keep it around this size and don’t inflate it again, dear IP! And not to pull boners and not to waste your own time, I recommend you to move to quote the next article with your remarkable skills – that yet have to be refrained and find contentment.

Apart from that I want to note that irrespective of what Lewis & Short says in Georges this is mainly an adjective. Fay Freak (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)Reply