Talk:chrysocarpus

RFV discussion: March 2017–May 2018
RFV for the adjective (alternative form, from Greek ).

Dictionaries: duo genera huius (sc. hederae) faciunt a colore acinorum erythranum et ~um Plin.Nat.16.147; hedera quam ~on appellauimus 24.77. Latin texts: Conclusion:
 * L&S: "chrȳsŏcanthos, i, f., I a kind of ivy which bears gold-colored berries, App. Herb. 119; called in Plin. 16, 34, 62, § 147, chrȳ-sŏcarpus, = χρυσόκαρπος."
 * Gaffiot: "chrȳsŏcanthos, i, f., Apul. Herb. 119 ou chrȳsŏcarpus, i, f. Plin. 16, 147 [...]"
 * OLD: "chrȳsocarpus ~um, a. ~os ~on [Gk. χρυσόκαρπος] Having golden berries.
 * Georges: "chrȳsocanthos u. chrȳsocarpus, ī, f. [...] Ps. Apul. herb. 119. Plin. 16, 147"
 * Pseudo-Apuleius Herbarius: That work contains pictures. BL mentions "Chrysocantis (or Crisocantis)" and on f.40r and f.40v it has: "Herba hedera chrisocantos · ideo q; g^na [page turn] fert coloris au[line break]rei · Hec g^na ·xx· ĩ uini sextario c̃t'ta, ex eo uino t̃ni ciati bibantv q' p^ urinã exinaniuntv." (I can't type most of the special characters and diacritics, especially where I put ^), and "Crisocantos" next to a picture. CML IV contains in CXX on p. 206: "Herba hedera crisocantes, ideo quia grana fert coloris aurei, haec grana XX in uini sextario contrita, ex eo uino terni ciati bibantur per dies VII, qui per urinam exinaniuntur.  A Graecis dicitur cissos crisocantes."
 * Pliny's Natural History book 16, 147: "alicui et semen nigrum, alii crocatum, cuius coronis poetae utuntur, foliis minus nigris, quam quidam Nysiam, alii Bacchicam vocant, maximis inter nigras corymbis. quidam apud Graecos etiamnum duo genera huius faciunt a colore acinorum, erythranum et chrysocarpum." In book 24, 77: "hedera, quam chrysocarpon appellavimus, bacis aurei coloris XX in vini sextario tritis, ita ut terni cyathi potetur, aquam, quae cutem subierit, urina educit; Erasistratus eiusdem acinos V tritos in rosaceo oleo calefactosque in cortice punici instillavit dentium dolori a contraria aure."

Pseudo-Apuleius' Herbarius contains chrȳsocanthos and thus is irrelevant for this. Pliny has "chrysocarpum" once in book 16 and "chrysocarpon" once in book 24. That would only attest 2 words and not 4 (2 parts of speech and 2 forms make 4 words). Compared with dictionary entries, Pliny's book 16 should attest chrȳsocarpus f. and his book 24 chrȳsocarpos, on. So the adjective with unusual and questionable nominative, chrȳsocarpus, us, um, isn't attested by this. -80.133.113.199 19:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It is in use as a specific epithet (chrysocarpus, -a, -um), ie, in New Latin. DCDuring TALK 18:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * chrysocarpus, -a, -um is not chrysocarpus, -us, -um.
 * Specific epithets are not necessarily Latin. It could very well be non-Latin, e.g. English or Translingual. Google books had no result for "Rhachidosorus chrysocarpus", several English and one German and one French result for "Rumex chrysocarpus", some English and one German result for "Juncus chrysocarpus", some French results for "Diospyros chrysocarpa", and some English results for "Archidendron chrysocarpum". I haven't searched for Rubus chrysocarpus, Styrax chrysocarpus, Crataegus chrysocarpa, Diospyros chrysocarpa, Duguetia chrysocarpa, Hedera chrysocarpa, Pyrausta chrysocarpa, Rollinia chrysocarpa, Myrceugenia chrysocarpa, Senna chrysocarpa, Geronema chrysocarpum as that are several terms and as I expect similar results. One can't attest a Latin term with non-Latin usages in non-Latin text, but just attest a Latin term with Latin texts. That's like one can't attest English terms with non-English texts (cf. anglicisms and pseudo-anglicisms), but just attest an English term with English usages in English texts.
 * -84.161.27.3 15:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I've placed a number of citations of running Latin text at Citations:chrysocarpus, on Citations:chrysocarpo (one of which refers to R. chrysocarpus) and on Citations:chrysocarpa. I think this is cited. - -sche (discuss) 02:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

If these taxonomic results are accepted as cites for the Latin term, then Citations:chrysocarpa shows that the entry missed the feminine in -a. Moreover, a label like should be added. In case of Translingual taxonomics, chrysocarpa is the common feminine while the feminine chrysocarpus is very rare (and seems like an error). -84.161.16.196 01:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, one could argue that the cites use the Translingual taxonomic term, namely in O. chrysocarpa (= Oxytropis chrysocarpa?; in Latin with ablative singular O. chrysocarpa), R. chrysocarpus (= Rubus chrysocarpus?; in Latin with dat. and abl. R. chrysocarpo), Juncus chrysocarpus (in Latin with dat. and abl. Junco supino), Hedera chrysocarpa (as edera chrysocarpos).

Translingual does permit a Latin entry, and the provided sources are Latin (also by context). So if there are no objections like regarding the label (i.e. older cites) or the feminine (i.e. something like "Hederam chrysocarpum" in Latin), it may be solved. -84.161.1.61 23:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I now made it "chrysocarpus (-a, -um)" [instead of dubious "chrysocarpus (-us, -um)"] with the feminine of Citations:chrysocarpa and added a label. The "masculine-shaped feminine" ad Citations:chrysocarpo rather belongs to chrysocarpos [i.e. "chrysocarpos (-on)", or maybe for clarity "chrysocarpos (-os, -on)"].