Talk:monoides

Requested cite
Dictionaries mention "luna, Firm. Math. 4 praef." and "luna, Firm. math. 4. praef. p. 85, 5 ed. Basil." as source.
 * (Comment: Matheseos seu astronomicorum libri VIII, book 4, preface)

Here is an edition of Julius Firmicus Maternus' Matheseos libri VIII. Between "" and "I." of "LIBER QUARTUS", I see the word luna twice ("idest Lunae omnes species ac formae", "ultimas partes Luna rursus accipiet"), but I don't see the word monoides there. Here are digital editions, 1, 2 (at "MLS"), but no result for monoides too. I also searched in the other books, but no results too. So it should depend on the edition, and the edition by W. Kroll and F. Skutsch shouldn't have the word monoides. "MLS" has 5 other results for monoides, but 0 results for monoidis, monoidem, monoidibus. It also found monoidos (2nd declension Greek nominative singular or Latin accusative plural, or typo or OCR error?) in "Beda Incertus, De constitutione mundi". Other words or word forms with -oid- which can be found are:
 * aeroidis, ascyroides, calathoides, ceratoide, corsoides, crystalloide, cynoides, daphnoides (daphnoide), deltoidem (New Latin, 16th or 17th century), dendroides, Ellipsoidis (New Latin, 18th century), hypatoides, netoides, menoides, mesoides, *neuroides (neuroidem, neuroide), polygonoides (polygonoide), prasoides (prasoiden (Greek accusative singular, or typo or OCR error?)), pyramoide, sesamoides (sesamoide), sphaeroides (sphaeroidis; Sphaeroidis, Sphaeroidem, Sphaeroide, Sphaeroidum), rhomboides.

So -um (not -ium) should be the genitive plural and -e (not -i) should be the ablative singular, at least for nouns in -oides. But as it is "In forma quippe pyramoide, virtus ignea; in ciboriis, quibus a cubis nomina sunt indita, pensatur animae perfectio cubica.", -e could also be the ablative of the adjective.

-Ikiaika (talk) 09:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe any of this is relevant to your interest as you created the Latin entry. If not, I'm sorry for bothering you with the ping.

But biologist and medical doctors also had adjectives in -oides (musculus deltoides, deltoid muscle or deltoid). However, there most likely were many other New Latin adjectives like in -oidalis and -oideus which are easier to decline.
 * Additions:
 * Other Latin adjectives derived from Greek and ending in -es are:
 * aplanes, caulodes, diopetes, exspes (only used in nom.), isosceles (also, maybe incorrectly, isocheles), maybe also carcinodes, rhypodes.
 * Neuter nominative or accusative plural I didn't find, except from New Latin "Arachnoida" which could be a noun. "Sphaeroidum" (Isaac Newton, Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica) could be a noun too. For isosceles one can find "triangula isoscelia" (maybe also by Euler in New Latin), "triangulorum isoscelium", and also "in eodem triangulo isoscele". There are also a few results for "triangula isoscela" (e.g. by Joannis Keill, 18th century), but one of these results also has "triangula isoscelia" and by the number of results it looks like "isoscela" is an error. So it still looks like the ablative is -e, while the genitive plural could be -ium. That is, it would not be consonant declension (abl. -e, gen. -um, like pauper, vetus) and not i-declension (abl. -i, gen. -ium, like acer, gravis, felix), but mixed declension (abl. -e, gen. -ium). Possibilities:
 * isosceles and -oides (as adjective) could be declined differently. But ἰσοσκελής and μονοειδής are declined the same way too (according to Wiktionary's tables). Thus, this wouldn't make much sense, or would it?
 * -oides as adjective and as noun could be declined differently, namely the adjective with -ium, the noun with -um. But I've read (though never really checked) that adjectives and substantivated adjectives which then are nouns are usually declined the same way. However, it was usually and there is for example serpens (noun) which has -ium like the participle, but later also had -um. So nouns in -oides could be declined like other nouns of the consonant declension, e.g. like honor, nomen and lampas.
 * Maybe the genitive plural and the neuter plural of words in -oides where never used in ancient times, making it a New Latin invention anyway. Maybe that could help to explain 'irregularities'.
 * Maybe (later) mathematicans only had nouns in -oides (rhomboides, sphaeroides, trapezoides, i.e. rhomboid, spheroid, trapezoid). That could explain why they declined the words like other nouns and not like substantivated adjectives.
 * -Ikiaika (talk) 09:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * This is all very interesting to me, but, unfortunately, I don't really have the time any more to do the work involved in looking into this. Perhaps JohnC5, Metaknowledge, or another of our Latin editors could help with this… — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * It appears that both L&S and Gaffiot were mistaken, both as to the location of their cited term and as to its form. occurs in book iv of 's Matheseos libri VIII, not in its preface, but rather in section 10 of that book's first chapter (see Citations:menoides); that word has the varia lectio, but not *. Should I mark  as New Latin, rather than Late Latin? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 12:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * clearly derives from the Greek, which word makes a lot more sense as a qualification of than . I'm going to RFV . — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

RFV discussion: January 2016–February 2017
RFV of the Latin adjective's declension. Tagged but not listed. The reason given was "Please verify the declension. E.g. it should be more likely that the nominative neuter form is 'monoīdes' like it also is 'neuroīdes' (neuter noun) and not 'neuroīdēs'." — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I made an exhaustive check, and can confirm that is a hapax legomenon and is only attested in the nominative singular. AFAICT, the only evidence that suggests that the in the ult is short is that it represents, etymologically, an epsilon rather than an eta. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Dictionaries mention words ending in -oides in different ways. Sometimes it's like "āeroīdēs, is (ἀεροειδής)" and sometimes like "nētoīdēs, es (νητοειδής, ές)". So in case of netoides it's said that the neuter form is short. In case of aeroides it might look like the neuter form is long (i.e. all nominative singular forms being the same), but it might also be short as it is in case of netoides and Greek νητοειδής. Furthermore:
 * In case of some words ending in -oides dictionaries state that the accusative (also) ends in -ēn (instead of -em).
 * Why should the neuter nominative plural end in -ia and not in -a and the genitive in -ium and not just in -um? In case of Latin adjectives it might be -ia, but Latin words derived from Greek aren't always declined like normal Latin words, thus normal Latin declension doesn't proof anything.
 * As for rhomboides:
 * Googling for "rhomboidium" didn't seem to bring up any good results. In biological/medical terms that is a form of an adjective as in "Veryhachium rhomboidium". But I couldn't find any Latin usage of "rhomboidium". "rhomboidum" instead lead to an Latin sentence where it is used next to "rhomboidibus" and to a German example ("Theilung der Rhomboidum"; Germans once declined Latin words like Romans do, which includes the usage of vocative and ablative).
 * Some dictionaries state that it is feminine, while others state that it is neuter. Maybe it's both depending on the author? Or maybe there are (older) text where the gender isn't obvious. In case of neuter gender, the plural should rather be "rhomboidia" or "rhomboida". Googling didn't seem to bring up a result for that. That is, the plural might be different (maybe "rhomboide" like it is pelage for pelagus), or maybe the plural for the neuter was never used, or maybe it never was neuter and some dictionaries are incorrect.
 * -80.133.101.186 13:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * An interesting find:
 * diopetēs ⁓ēs ⁓es, a. [Gk. διοπετής] Fallen from the sky.
 * So the OLD does explicitly make the length distinction in the neuter for that adjective. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * So the OLD does explicitly make the length distinction in the neuter for that adjective. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

It seems like one can find "triangulum Isoscelen" in Frenchmen's New Latin and "einen Triangulum Isoscelen" in German (triangulum here being the accusative of the masculine triangulus). But this is rare, New Latin, might be an error (a grammatical error or a printing error), and "triangulum isoscelem" is more common though the masculine form is rarer than the neuter "triangulum isosceles". "triangulum isoscelea" seems not to be findable, thus also not attestable [making the distionction of "findable" and "attestable" here as a found could contain an error in some way and as one found most likely wouldn't be sufficient for attesting a completely new declension form]. In NL one can also find monoidem: "[...] ut diximus, monoidem seu unius spsciei [typo of speciei] vocant differentiam", "[...] quam dicunt Monoidem.", "[...] nominibus dictas recedendo, scilicet monoidem, dichotomum et amphicrytos [...]" (Alberti Magni De natura boni, Monasterii Westfalorum, 1974). So it clearly should be monoidem. However, it seems like no neuter plural monoidia, monoidium (or monoida, monoidum) is attestable. But as isosceles has these forms it should be good enough. If every form would have to be attested, than many forms would be missing here. E.g. while one might say "o (stupid/good) dog" (vocative), it's leass likely that one says "o toilett paper". Thus many vocatives would have to be removed or marked with a star even though there is no doubt that it is the correct form one would use if needed.
 * As the RFV is older than one year (! - by the intro it would have to be removed one month after the discussion ended) and as there is most likely no proof for any vowel length, I copied the note from isosceles (which information is fine, but maybe could be phrased a little bit better).
 * As for acc. sg. -ēn or -em: Greek acc. -εα (μονοειδέᾰ, ἰσοσκελέᾰ) would lead to *-ea (monoidea, isoscelea). So an acc. -ēn seems to be 'incorrect'. It should belong to substantive nouns in -oides (e.g. in Georges "amygdaloīdēs, Akk. ēn, m.") and it should come from first declension nom. -ης, acc. -ην; hence in Latin's first declension nom. -ēs, gen. -ae, acc. -ēn and sometimes in Late Latin also -em from the 3rd delension, as.
 * As for plural -ia/-a and -ium/-um: rhomboides is a substantive noun, and when adjectives become substantivised they can 'change' their inflection, like serpens meaning snake from the participle serpens originally has gen.pl. -ium and later also -um. But for rhomboides it might be more likely that people simply declined it like nomen (pl. nomina, gen. nominum). So that doesn't say anything about adjectives like monoides.
 * To sum it up: The entry should be okey now. (If not, please re-tag it with RFV.)
 * -84.161.44.63 04:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

RFV discussion: March–April 2017

 * 2nd RFV: attestation

The referenced authorities for (L&S and Gaffiot) both cite the preface to the fourth of 's Matheseos libri VIII. However, Firmicus does not use there, and nor does he anywhere else, it seems; the word Firmicus uses — a little later — is. See the entry for the genuine term as well as Talk:monoides for more information. Since that leaves without ancient attestation, I request the word's verification, with a view to discovering its date of first attestation. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

The cite above - see "Alberti Magni De natura boni, Monasterii Westfalorum, 1974" wich is clearly a bad one because of a spelling or printing error - should attest it, at least for NL, or ML when it's quote of Albertus Magnus. And then there might be older NL usages. So, as for ancient Latin one could add a note mentioning that it depends on edition. Maybe one could even state that old and incorrect editions have monoides while it's menoides nowadays, but I don't know if that's the case.
 * The first request was for the inflection, this is for the existence.
 * As for ancient attestation: Dictionary references for monoides are "Firm. Math. 4 praef.", "Firm. Math. 4, praef.", "Firm. math. 4. praef. p. 85, 5 ed. Basil.", and for menoides "Firm. Math. 4 praef. fin.", "Firm. Math. 4", "Firm. math. 4. praef. extr.". So it might depend on the edition. I'd guess you used an edition by W. Kroll and F. Skutsch like "Iulii Firmici Materni matheseos libri VIII ediderunt W. Kroll et F. Skutsch. Lipsiae [in Leipzig], MDCCCXCVII [1897]" and not the "ed. Basil.". Some editions do indeed have monoides like "Iulii Firmicima terni iunioris siculi u. c. ad mauortium Lollianum Astronomicῶn [with Greek ῶ] Lib. VIII per Nicolaum Prucknerum Astrologum nuper ab innumeris mendis uindicati. Basileae [in Basel], mense martio, anno M. D. XXXIII [March 1533]" (google), p. 85: "Est itaq; ☽ [that's a moon form] aut synodica, aut plena, aut dichotomos, aut monoides, aut amphycitos, & p_ has mutatas formas cursus menstrui luminis complet." -q; and p_ are Latin abbreviations which I can't type.
 * Maybe another example in ancient Latin: "uniforme, quod monoides Graeci dicunt" by Aphthonius (e.g. in Henricus Keilius's edition and in CGL's edition). Well, maybe one could argue that it's just a transcription and a mentioning, but some words used in similar sentences are included in dictionaries like L&S. And I guess in other similar cases the words can have clearly Latin endings, though I don't have any example at hand. So here the problem would just be that the neuter monoides has -es in nominative and accusative in Latin and in transcribed Greek.
 * Other examples in NL: "... aut monoidem, i.e. uniformem ..." (1710, J. Conr. Barchusen in reference to Firm.), "... cum luna primo est accensa et crescens et monoides ..." ("Museum für Altdeutsche Literatur und Kunst. Zweiter Band. Berlin 1811", p. 130, from Germans mentioning and quoting an old manuscript, so it could be ML and not NL), "In principio fuit Ecclesia quasi luna in defectu, quum appellatur Monoides." ("Spicilegium Solesmense complectens sanctorum patrum scriptorumque ecclesiasticorum anecdota hactenus opera [...] curante domno J. B. Pitra. Tomus secundus. Parisiis [in Paris], M DCCC LV [1855]", p. 66). From a German MHG dictionary: "wenn der môn aller smalsihtigist und sô er ze latein monoides haiȥt Megb. 442, 30.", thus monoides should appear in ML - and may it be erroneously in Firm.'s work.
 * So I guess an entry is justified, but it needs a usage note regarding Firm.'s work and references to it or usages based on it. -84.161.16.137 18:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I have converted the definition to a non-gloss one which mentions that it is uncertain whether this word existed and had the same meaning as its Greek etymon, or is an error for meno-. - -sche (discuss) 07:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for your work. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)