Is the declension of "-ides" on Wiktionary wrong?

Asked Feb 16 '23 at 14:54

Active Feb 25 '23 at 10:32

Viewed 152 times

I found the suffix -ides tagged as "3rd. decl." on Wiktionary, with "-idis" as its genitive. But as I learnt, the patronymic suffix -ides is a Greek-type 1st. decl. suffix (e.g. L&S: "Achillides, -ae"), is this Wiktionary entry just a mistake?

Edit: The suffix as in Achillides has a long i, while the suffix on Wiktionary has a short one.

edited Feb 25 '23 at 10:32

asked Feb 16 '23 at 14:54

Kotoba Trily Ngian

2,927
3
14

4

If you look, it seems it links to a Medieval Latin name. It's perhaps just been re-analyzed as a normal Latin 3rd-declension noun instead of a proper Greek patronymic. – cmw Feb 16 '23 at 23:37
2

I have not done an exhaustive search, but all of the -ides nouns with an -idae genitive which I have seen, like achillides, had had a long i. Is there a distinction to be made between long and short i in -ides? – Figulus Feb 17 '23 at 04:30
1

Often times, names of Greek origin could be used with either Latin or (approximate) Greek endings, in Latin. So I guess I wouldn't be surprised to see this. But I don't know more about this particular suffix. – Cerberus Feb 21 '23 at 02:43
1

I couldn't come to a firm answer, but here is a relevant previous question: What is the gender and singular declension of the scientific Latin suffix -idae? – Asteroides Mar 04 '23 at 08:02

Is the declension of "-ides" on Wiktionary wrong?

0 Answers0