Talk:mammale

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search
Keep tidy.svg

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.


mammale

This isn't given for "mammal" in any dictionary I own or have examined. It also does not match scientific usage, where "Mammalia" is used as the plural. --EncycloPetey 16:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Note: Its inflected forms ought to be deleted as well. --EncycloPetey 16:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Should be RFV? Mglovesfun (talk) 16:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
No; it's an adjective with a substantive meaning, and the inflection is wrong. If you can find citations to support gender-specific usage, then the noun's lemma page would be supported, but the inflection will still be wrong and the form pages will still have to be deleted. This is an I-stem inflection. --EncycloPetey 16:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
My source was Latin Wikipedia. e.g. w:la:Ovis aries has "Ovis aries est mammale quadrupes ruminans ..." SemperBlotto 16:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
That's substantive use of an adjective. It's not a noun in Latin. --EncycloPetey 16:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Note that Latin Wikipedia is not a good source any more than any other Wikipedia. Your example sentence demonstrates why. It translates "Sheep ram is of/with breasts (going on) four feet ruminating ..." (1) It uses the scientific name Ovis aries, which makes no sense in Latin proper, since ovis is a feminine noun meaning "sheep" and aries is a masculine noun meaning "ram". The combination is strictly found in taxonomic "New Latin" which we classify as Translingual. (2) It uses a string of predicate adjectives and a participle, the first of which is neuter and therefore does not match the gender of the subject, unless it is being used as a substantive, but the grammar is equivocal. The other adjective and participle have a single nominative form for all genders and so are of no help in parsing the grammar.
The w:la:Mammalia is helpful here, as it points out that Linnaean taxonomy first adopted the term in 1758, but used as the plural adjectival form mammaliorum. So, any support for the noun would have to come from citations of the last 250 years. --EncycloPetey 16:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

deleted as unattested -- Liliana 12:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)