Isn´t "octuplus" a proportionale, not a multiplicativum? It can be used as such, but strictly speaking a proportionale is formed with "-plus" and a multiplicativum with "-plex". You can look it up here: https://books.google.at/books?id=2nFEAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA49&lpg=PA49&dq=octoplus+latein&source=bl&ots=ZzEV7QJ2w_&sig=hSZEy6wAuzEUt7CW1EikkLC1aP0&hl=de&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj98fLR6IbOAhUE7RQKHXaMBl4Q6AEILTAB#v=onepage&q=octoplus%20octuplex&f=false. Please correct me if I am wrong. (Subsignatio reconstructa) 184.108.40.206 (disputatio) 19:53, 22 Iulii 2016 (UTC).
- Thanks for your hint, formally you're right. I added both forms (proportional and multiplicative), though I did't find any occurrence of "octuplex" in the Latin literature being available and searchable for me. Not all grammatically possible forms are used in the literature; "octuplus" and "octuplex" are semantically very close and as it seems, writers preferred "octuplus". If you've found some usage of "octuplex" (grammar books do not count), please feel free to post it here, or create the entry "octuplex" yourself including the text example. --YaganZ (disputatio) 18:00, 26 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
It´s mentioned in the Tironian notes (65,47a) and indirectly sourced by Livius (4,24,7). He used the form "octuplicatus" which is derived from "octuplex" due to the common origin "-plicare". But I agree with you. The word itself is not very well documented. (Subsignatio reconstructa) 220.127.116.11 (disputatio) 23:39, 2 Augusti 2016 (UTC).