Talk:aethiops
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
A species epithet. Should be a Latin adjective, not a Translingual proper noun. DCDuring TALK 18:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Depends if it's used in Latin; some called taxonomic Latin 'pseudo-Latin', that is to say it looks like Latin but isn't; don't move to Latin if it's unattested. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- EP makes the argument such things are Latin because a binomial (and trinomial) species names are in fact Latin noun phrases, following the applicable Latin grammar rules. Apparently New Latin is falling/has fallen out of use for species descriptions, but had been the matrix in which such noun phrases had a fuller linguistic role. The argument is straightforward and reflected in most or our practice affecting such terms. Are we retrograding to the "arbitrariness of the sign" to dismantle such arguments? DCDuring TALK 04:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- I still want attestation. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- I doubt that any New Latin coinages have attestation that we can find unless we accept the two part names themselves as attestation. DCDuring TALK 13:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- I believe (due to comments made here) that EP was in the minority when he made that argument, however. - -sche (discuss) 08:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- But his vote was as the vote of ten because his arguments were cogent. The consistent system he seems to advocate is that all species epithets are Latin, that two- and three-part taxonomic names don't belong at Wiktionary. This is consistent with the standard practice of italicizing two+-part taxonomic names. That is, the community that uses the whole range of such names views and treat them as if Latin. That New Latin in all its forms (medical, legal, taxonomic, inscriptions and seals, ecclesiastical) deviates from classical Latin and is treated infra dig by many seems an interesting phenomenon of prescriptivism. DCDuring TALK 13:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- DCDuring, If you doubt that it can be attested, why propose the move? --Mglovesfun (talk) 20:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- Because I think that attestation by usage in species names is sufficient. If no one else does, then I have no idea what to do with such terms. I leave it to those who haven't worked in the area and know little about such usage to solve for themselves as they see fit. DCDuring TALK 22:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- DCDuring, If you doubt that it can be attested, why propose the move? --Mglovesfun (talk) 20:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- But his vote was as the vote of ten because his arguments were cogent. The consistent system he seems to advocate is that all species epithets are Latin, that two- and three-part taxonomic names don't belong at Wiktionary. This is consistent with the standard practice of italicizing two+-part taxonomic names. That is, the community that uses the whole range of such names views and treat them as if Latin. That New Latin in all its forms (medical, legal, taxonomic, inscriptions and seals, ecclesiastical) deviates from classical Latin and is treated infra dig by many seems an interesting phenomenon of prescriptivism. DCDuring TALK 13:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- I still want attestation. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- EP makes the argument such things are Latin because a binomial (and trinomial) species names are in fact Latin noun phrases, following the applicable Latin grammar rules. Apparently New Latin is falling/has fallen out of use for species descriptions, but had been the matrix in which such noun phrases had a fuller linguistic role. The argument is straightforward and reflected in most or our practice affecting such terms. Are we retrograding to the "arbitrariness of the sign" to dismantle such arguments? DCDuring TALK 04:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)