Talk:nudiflora

nudiflora
This entry has the wrong part of speech (specific epithets are never proper nouns), wrong "language", and no definition. --EncycloPetey 18:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * These should all be (New) Latin presumably. Would it not be desirable to indicate that they are used in taxonomic names, though not by themselves taxonomic names? DCDuring TALK 18:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In an appendix, perhaps, but not as the "definition". This should exist only as a Latin form-of entry, and I'm getting tired of cleaning them all up.  If these were being created by an anon, we'd have blocked him by now after stern warnings. --EncycloPetey 18:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete the section. Alone, this word is not translingual at all (no standard defines it in isolation). But I agree with DCDuring: when such a Latin word is used only in scientific names, this fact should be mentioned in the page (in the definition or in a note). When it is used in other contexts, there is no need to mention that it's also used in scientific names. Lmaltier 20:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That isn't what DCD said, but a templated usage note to that effect in some epithets seems reasonable, such as those derived from proper names of specific people. --EncycloPetey 20:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I was open to any possibilities. One idea: category placement: Category:Taxonomic epithets or similar. Having a date of first use for the ones coined in New Latin would establish that the term was "New Latin". DCDuring TALK 23:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Would it be more productive if you told us how these words should be defined, rather than telling us what is wrong. Could you, for instance, point me to one that has been "cleaned-up". SemperBlotto 21:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If there were a single easy way to clean them up, I could point that out. However, they're a mix of nouns, adjectives , participles (erectus:, ), and other items.  Sometimes they're lemma forms of Latin terms (like ), and sometimes they're "form of" entries (like ).  As a result, formatting these requires a knowledge of Latin grammar. --EncycloPetey 21:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We're getting closer to a consensus on what not to do. Just not a consensus on what to do (per SemperBlotto). Mglovesfun (talk) 21:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There also seems to be a general opinion that these words are some sort of Latin. But there are words such as decapetalus: (as in Helianthus decapetalus:) that seem to be from Greek. SemperBlotto 21:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * They are from Ancient Greek, but they are still Latin. Latin has a very large number of terms from Greek, even in the Classical language. --EncycloPetey 21:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, and these new "Latin" words may have any etymology, they may from any language, even modern ones. Lmaltier 22:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * So, if Latin can have words that are from Greek, can't Translingual have words that are from Latin? SemperBlotto 22:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, and names of genera are such words. However, nudiflora is not a translingual word any more than "Faso" is an English word.  See the reasoning above under the previous section rattus.  The element nudiflora appears only as part of a Translingual name, and never as a translingual word. --EncycloPetey 22:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * FWIW I tend to agree that 'A specific epithet for ' isn't a definition. I'd rather have a Latin entry. Let users use their brains to work out the rest. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It is easy enough to look up a given term of classical origin at Perseus using dictionary search to find out what Latin PoS an entry might be and whether it is in lemma form or not. For newer terms the Latin suffix might provide a clue. is a start.  should get the entry perfected. DCDuring TALK 23:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not that easy, since Perseus is based off Lewis & Short, who often set entries of one PoS as subsections under the header of another PoS from which the term was derived. It also will not help when the word being examined is not the lemma, which is quite often the case for a specific epithet, as it may be the genitive form of a noun with a stem modification, the genitive form of a noun, or the feminine or neuter of an adjective or participle (which may also have a stem modification).  While the ending might provide a clue, there are many situations where it will be misleading or uninformative.  A -us ending could be a noun, adjective, or participle.  An ending in -e or -o could be almost any part of speech. --EncycloPetey 23:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There is also the word-study tool there to point one to the lemma. If all this is too complicated for a contributor the other option is to use WT:RE:la. DCDuring TALK 00:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Which is less than satisfactory, even for words that were common in Classical Latin. I tried looking up rubrum, and got information that it was related to rubrus, which is incorrect.  The word rubrum is a form of, and this information was not returned by their tool. --EncycloPetey 01:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, well. Since we aren't likely to experience a widespread improvement in Latin skills beyond those in the online resources, our choices seem limited. Would you prefer efforts to make entries which have to cleaned up or to have a larger list of requested entries? DCDuring TALK 01:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally, a list of requested entries is better for me, in general. The cleanup list gets swamped by things that don't actually need cleanup. I've practically given up on that category, but do still work on the Requests list.  It's also easier for me to create a clean entry from scratch than to try to judge, manipulate, and correct content, at least when the creator doesn't know basic Latin entry principles.  There are some editors here with meagre Latin skills who manage to do all right (mostly) because they're aware of the limits to their knowledge and so don't insert lots of incorrect content, but do insert the useful content that they have with just enough framework to make it usable.  --EncycloPetey 01:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (IMO) a good comparison would be je ne sais quoi:. It's undeniably English, but that doesn't justify English entries for all four words. I'd argue this is a particle, hence delete, keep just the Latin. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Right. These should be Latin entries, and, until they are, I don't see the major harm in keeping them, but we shouldn't create any more, and, when they're converted to Latin, the translingual section should be deleted. &#x200b;—msh210℠ 15:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * These are certainly NOT Latin entries. Translingual is the only language header which makes any kind of sense, especially when you consider species names like "darwinii" from a person's name or the Greek or English or other language species names which have been "Latin-ized" by some taxonomist or other at some point in the past.  I think we should probably not include the species part of taxonomic names, rather keep the binominal names and genus names only.  The species name can be defined briefly in the etymologies of the binominal names e.g. "+ darwinii from Charles Darwin" or "+ troglodytes cave dwelling from Latin".  -  13:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with most of that. The only reason to keep them at all is if they are words used apart from any specific genus name. A quick look at Google books yields, for example, "Among those honors are dozens of plants with the epithet darwinii" and "The specific name nudiflora has reference to the flowers being without hairs or glands". SemperBlotto 13:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that constitutes a "mention", or at least a metalinguistic usage, rather than a true "usage".
 * Part of the point is that they have been Latinized. New Latin is a vintage of Latin. Some New Latin is used for ecclesiastical purposes and for Latin mottos, inscriptions, diplomas, etc. The inflection of these terms requires knowledge of Latin. Most who use the term are incapable of using the component words properly. The Translingual taxons seem to serve as set phrases for those who do not know Latin. Perhaps if it could be shown that, say, "darwinii" is used in multiple languages not as part of a two-part species name, this would warrant inclusion as Translingual.
 * IMHO, the core difficulty is that we are attempting to treat "Translingual" as if it were a language. It is simply a header that is designed to help us eliminate one large set of cases of mostly meaningless duplication of entry content across multiple language sections. I suppose we could make Scientific Latin a language name that we accepted, but it seems at best a dialect of Latin. Would Church, Medical, and Legal Latin be next? DCDuring TALK 15:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Not a language or dialect, but jargon specific to a particular field. We treat "legal Latin" as English in most cases, since the phrases and terms do not appear in a Latin context nor in non-English contexts, in most cases.  Their use seems restricted to English legal documents and publications. --EncycloPetey 16:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I really hesitate to include words which are meaningless in Latin as Latin words. When I said they had been Latin-ized it was a bit tongue-in-cheek; they have been made to look Latin but have certainly not been adopted into the Latin language.  We should either delete them or include them as Translingual based on taxonomic usage. -  17:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Calling them Translingual makes no sense, because they have no independent existence as words outside of Latin. Their only Translingual useage is as part of a proper noun, and your assertions have not addressed any of my arguments objecting to the inclusion of them on that basis.


 * However, many of these recent coinages do have an existence in Latin that is separate from species name usage, so of course, they've been adopted into the Latin language. Botanists require every published botanical taxon name to include a diagnosis written in Latin.  Many of these recent coinages come to be used in such diagnoses, which are (1) in Latin, and (2) durably archived.  The diagnosis for the order Lepicoleales, for example, is: Plerumque, folia dissecta, triseriata.  Plantae perigyniis succulentis, perianthiis reductis vel deest (praeter Ptilidiineae). Setae grandes, capsulae parietibus multistratosis. (publ. 2000)  About a third of those words will not be found outside of New Latin, and less than half have the same meaning prior to the 18th century when they are found in older forms of Latin. --EncycloPetey 16:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)