Disputatio:Aetas lapidea

message: "Aetas lapidaria" apud Google non reperio (hoc articulo excepto!).
"Aetas lapidis" in 1 vel 2 paginis tantum exstat.
"Aetas lithica" non reperio (sed "neolithica" et "palaeolithica" saepe).
Alia verba petenda, fortasse? Nescio! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:17, 9 Martii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Probe dicis, amice. I invented the phrase (and parallel ones) as a stopgap, and if attestations turn up, then of course the title & lemma should be changed. The modern-language term is old enough that some academic article or doctoral dissertation somewhere may have a Latin version of it. ¶ I've checked on Google and found three seeming attestations, but they aren't genuine. The one in Harkness 1898 is an accident that occurs because the words aetas and lapidis stand in adjacent paradigms on the same page. The one in Pelliccia 1838—Ex duabus itaque hisce notis liquido patet aetas lapidis, qui procul dubio saeculo IV. recentior est—is a false attestation, as the author is talking about particular (Christian!) stones, and by aetas lapidis he means 'the age of the stone', rather than 'the Stone Age'. Identically the one in von Gaertringen 1903. At least Aetas Lapidaria doesn't permit of this ambiguity. ¶ I wonder about aevum lapidis/lapidarium but don't find attestations. IacobusAmor 13:38, 9 Martii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :"Aetas lapidea" legitur hic et  hic. --Fabullus 14:11, 9 Martii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Macte, Fabulle! O attestationes germanas! Now let's wait a few hours or days and see if others turn up. ¶ One worry: according to Cassell's, lapidea here would mean 'made of stone' (which the Stone Age most certainly wasn't), whereas lapidaria could mean 'relating to stone' (which the Stone Age most definitely was). IacobusAmor 14:18, 9 Martii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Confer Ovidii Metamorphoses I 89 'aurea aetas'; 114 'argentea proles'; 125 'aënea proles'. --Fabullus 14:53, 9 Martii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::More poetico? (Sed solutam orationem scribimus.) White's dictionary non habet nomen adiectivum lapidarius, sed cum Cassell's concinit de lapideus: 'consisting of stones, stones [Cic.]; formed or made out of stone [Cic.]; petrified by some sudden or violent emotion [Plaut.]; formed, made, built, or constructed of stone, stone [Liv.]; containing stones, having stones in it [Pl.]; abounding in stones, stony [Pl.]; stone-like, stony [Pl.]'. Fortasse L&S nos adiuvabunt? IacobusAmor 15:04, 9 Martii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::Mos poeticus qui a multis scriptoribus orationis solutae recentioris aevi libenter acceptus est: vide e.g. Ioannes Fridericus Nolte, Lexicon Latinae Linguae Antibarbarum Quadripartitum Lispiae 1744, col.1829-1830
replies: text: ::::::Yes, according to Cassell's, aeneus, argenteus, and aureus had figurative senses in the Classical period, but lapideus did not. (Their basic sense remains 'made [physically] of a designated metal'.) Still, in view of the obvious parallelism among these terms and the modern attestations of Aetas Lapidea, the title should probably be changed, so I'll do it now. IacobusAmor 17:06, 9 Martii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::::Aetas saxea, from Morg., Ov. M. 1, 89. Nescio an saxea melius quam lapidea est, sed videtur esse fons classica. --Rafaelgarcia 13:23, 27 Maii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::::Credo Morgan erravisse. Verbum "saxea" in Ov. Met. libro 1 non reperio; quattuor aetates fuerunt aurea, argentea, aënea, ferrea. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:36, 27 Maii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::::::Probe dicis. Ego erravi. Morgan sic scripsit "aetas saxea (cf. aetas aurea, Ov. M. 1, 89) ". Ergo solum est opinio eius. --Rafaelgarcia 14:32, 27 Maii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nomine