Talk:albicilla

Latin
I strongly suspect this is an erroneous adjective created by someone who didn't know Latin genders very well rather than a noun. In particular, it is used in Haliaeetus albicilla, which was originally named Falco albicilla. I suspect the person who chose the name Falco albicilla thought that was feminine rather than masculine (an easy mistake to make), and accordingly used the feminine of. This error was then propagated when the genus was renamed. Benwing2 (talk) 05:35, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * A taxonomist would say that the species was moved to a new genus, not that the genus was renamed ( is still the correct genus for most falcons). The specific epithet is supposed to agree with the generic name when it's an adjective, but in this case it may be a noun "in apposition" as the puts it. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:28, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Here is the original publication. If Linnaeus had thought that Falco was feminine, you would think that some of the other specific epithets would be feminine, but none of them seem to be. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:13, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's very helpful. Benwing2 (talk) 11:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not thrilled about considering this Latin if it's only used in (one?) taxonomic name, but the evidence above suggests that the analysis of this as a noun whose second element is the noun cilla, rather than an adjective, is plausible. Anyone else want to weigh in? - -sche (discuss) 01:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If it helps any, I suspect that Linnaeus capitalizes nouns in his taxonomic names, somewhat like modern German does. That would mean that Albicilla is confirmed as a noun rather than an adjective. As for whether this is Latin or Translingual: I've managed to track down some of the passages referenced by Linnaeus' inscrutable abbreviations, though perhaps not the same editions. These are works that predate the current binomial system, and they're mostly in Latin. These have albicilla as one of the names for the bird in question: Geſn.av.205 is Volume III of Conrad Gessner's Historia animalium, page 199 (in this edition, at least). Will. ornith. 31 is Francis Willughby's "Ornithologiae Libri Tres" page 31. Raj. av. 7 n. 5 is John Ray's "Synopsis methodica avium & piscium", page 7 no. 5. Although these are arguably mentions, note that two of them mention it in the accusative singular, in Latin running text. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


 * OK, so, this appears to be attested, indeed as a Latin noun, and now the remaining question is: Chuck Entz, when you say certain works "have albicilla as one of the names for the bird in question", does that mean the definition (currently "white tail") needs to be changed, to e.g. "bird with a white tail" or some specific bird? - -sche (discuss) 21:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * For Haliaeetus albicilla, it does look like it might the original Latin name for the species. All of the references I linked to above quote "Gaza" as their source, apparently . It's the name used by Gaza to translate . I just found a reference used by the Wikipedia article on, ] that explains everything quite well: the use of cilla for tail seems to come from a medieval misinterpretation of the in  as the object of the  part of the word rather than a diminutive suffix. In other words, as a "move-tail" rather than a "little mover". Gaza then used this word in a reversed-order calque of  (which is from  + ). Later, taxonomists seem to have reanalyzed it into a straightforward compound adjective meaning "white-tailed". here is a reference to "Hortulanum alibicillum", with "Hortulanus" on the same page, which looks like "Hortulanus albicillus" as the name of a specific bird used in the accusative. That name, however, seems to be an adjective modifying a masculine noun.
 * From the above, I would suggest that there are two senses: a name for Haliaeetus albicilla used by Gaza to translate and an adjective meaning white-tailed or white-rumped (I'm not sure which) used in pre-Linnaean taxonomy. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

—Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 09:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There still are 0 quotes. --Myrelia (talk) 11:12, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You put this everywhere. Maybe review Criteria_for_inclusion and for extinct languages/spoken languages not represented on the internet Criteria_for_inclusion. This discussion is well sourced. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 15:47, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * For non-WT:WDLs a single mention can be sufficient. But the entry doesn't even have a single mention; there's nothing to support (inside the entry or on Citations:albicilla). At the very least, one of the above (possible) sources should be given in the entry. Compare the introduction of this page, where it is: "Cite, on the article page, usage of the word in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning". --Myrelia (talk) 02:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You're right, it says add quotations to the page, I've added them now. I originally intended to do that after seeing if someone objected on the substance. I presume btw that you don't, otherwise you would have said so.

—Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 21:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)