Talk:parthenogenesis

Citations of the plural form, parthenogeneses
Visible G.B.S. hits:, , , , , , , , , , , ,. †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 15:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for verification
RfV-sense for:
 * A theory of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ.

Not in the OED. Also, as it is defined, it is very vague. BTW, the quotation for the main biologic sense needs to be properly formatted, with the quotation’s information greatly expanded. †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I very much doubt that a theologian would resort to science to defend a believed event, particularly one that is a supposed miracle. I do recall a teacher saying that parthenogenesis happens, so the virgin birth could have occurred... He was a science teacher, so should have known better. Offspring via parthenogenesis are inevitably female. Pingku 18:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don’t find it at all doubtful, given the extraordinary lengths that some creationists go to for the doomed cause of imbuing their myth with scientific credibility. †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 18:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * :) But I wouldn't credit every common-or-garden creationist with the status of theologian. Pingku 19:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps not. Touché. :-D †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Cited, rewrote def somewhat since it does not seem to refer to any specific doctrine. Seems to be a literal use of partheno- + -genesis, rather than a copying of the scientific concept, AFAICT. -- Visviva 13:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yup, looks verified to me. I concur with your etymological judgment; I’ve added a usage note to explain that, including the point made above by Pingku. †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

RFV passed. Thanks for the cites and rewriting, Visviva, and other work, Doremítzwr. —Ruakh TALK 00:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Clarification on Usage Notes
Perhaps I just require an explanation, but the usage notes are confusing to me. Why would the fact that parthenogenetic offspring are always female have anything to do with it? Proxyma (talk) 19:11, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Looking at the history of this page further, it seems to have been an outgrowth from the above discussion. Since the logic of the usage note is unclear, and it lacks citations that would help in cleaning it up, I'm going to go ahead and remove it. Proxyma (talk) 19:24, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Re "Why would the fact that parthenogenetic offspring are always female have anything to do with it?", because Jesus was male. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:27, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I know that, but what does that have to do with which sense of the prefix can be thought to be used for the third sense of this word? Proxyma (talk) 19:31, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Were it meant in the biological sense, Jesus would've been female; therefore, the theological sense employs the prefix in its etymological sense. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:36, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok. I have a couple more questions though. First, is this really a "usage note" or an etymological one? It seems more like an argument about which sense of the prefix is most likely to contribute to the word's meaning, but I doubt that is going to contribute to the word's *usage* at all. Should the header be changed?
 * Getting back to the core issue, is the following an accepted way to reason about etymology? You may know better than I, so this is really just a question. But: -parens is a prefix that can mean "virgin" or "absence of fertilisation, asexual reproduction." Either of these as stated would technically apply to the Virgin Birth, although obviously the first is closer. We only reach the conclusion that only the first sense is applicable by considering an external scientific fact: no known asexual reproduction can lead to male offspring. But that was not part of the original definition of parens-, it's something we synthesized from elsewhere.
 * I guess the limits of my lexicographical knowledge are showing here, but perhaps what I'm really asking is: when we consider a definition, should we go beyond the words that are actually in the definition when considering its meaning (in this case external scientific reality), or should the logic be closed to the actual words themselves? Proxyma (talk) 19:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * In any case, I moved the notes to the etymology section. I'm satisfied at this point. Proxyma (talk) 20:29, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I take your point about the placement of the note; it is better suited to its new home in the etymology section. (I assume you mean the prefix, from , rather than anything to do with the Latin .) Your point re deciding the issue by reference to scientific facts that may be unknown to the writer in question is also valid; however, in this case, the scientific fact about that asexual reproduction is at the core of the biologic sense already, and isn't the important thing about Jesus' virgin birth from a theological perspective: Mary did not beget Jesus through sexual intercourse, so Mary's virginity was preserved; Jesus was not a monogametic masculinised clone of Mary and neither was he fatherless (God was his father, via The Holy Spirit); certainly the etymological sense was meant. Thanks for challenging the usage note, because, as a result, I found out about . :-)  — I.S.M.E.T.A. 01:33, 8 November 2016 (UTC)