Talk:iroquoianus

Is there a source for this? Aulus Sergius Sulla (talk) 13:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

RFV discussion: February–April 2017

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

---

iroquoianus

Doubt this is attested in Neo-Latin. — Kleio (t · c) 19:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• Aphiochaeta iroquoiana, Eimeria iroquoiana, Megaselia iroquoiana, Rama iroquoiana. The alternative to calling it Latin is to duplicate the Latin noun and adjective inflection-line templates. I'd be happy to let you do it.

That's similar to the RFV for tremuloides (see above: WT:RFV#tremuloides).
I guess one should simply change it from Latin into Translingual, just like e.g. Populus tremuloides is Translingual and not Latin and like sapiens is also Translingual.
(Well, by a google books search for Aphiochaeta iroquoiana, Eimeria iroquoiana, Megaselia iroquoiana, Rama iroquoiana, iroquoiana and iroquoianus the adjective iroquoianus (-a, -um) doesn't seem to be attestable as Translingual but just as English as I only saw one and not three results for languages other than English which by WT:CFI would mean it's only attestable in English and not attestable in German, French etc. Anyhow, taxonomic names are considered to be Translingual by WT:Translingual, and then it makes sense to include Translingual and non-Latin terms like tremuloides, fleischmanni and iroquoianus as Translingual terms. For Translingual terms which also exist in Latin like ruber in Chisocheton ruber, Ropicomimus ruber, Parasophronicomimus ruber one could omit a Translingual section, but e.g. sapiens already has a Translingual entry and this might be better.) -84.161.45.96 02:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

If you are proposing that we need, in principle, to attest each taxon in multiple languages to justify its inclusion under Translingual L2 header, you are proposing a potential for a colossal waste of time. Are you doing this in pursuit of some ideal definition of what makes a term part of a language (which Translingual isn't, btw)? Are you doing this to maintain the linguistic purity of what we call Latin, which already excludes scientific, legal, and medical Latin for no particularly compelling reason? (We also don't include very much ecclesiastical and even medieval Latin.) You will find that the treatment of specific epithets and of taxonomic names has been repeatedly discussed with no suggestions that are obviously superior to the approach which we find convenient if inelegant. With regard to specific epithets in general, we have been including all of the ones that inflect or potentially inflect with respect to gender as Latin, those that appear only in the genitive we deem Translingual. Do you have any thoughts about this? Should we have a category for all terms, whether we deem them now Latin or Translingual, that are ever used as specific epithets? Would you be willing to work on rectifying all the L2 headers that you believe incorrect? DCDuring TALK 03:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• "If you are proposing that we need, in principle, to attest each taxon in multiple languages to justify its inclusion under Translingual L2 header [...]"
  No, I didn't propose that or anything else when I just pointed out that some Translingual terms maybe aren't used translingually. (That is at the moment factually they aren't used translingually, hypothetically they could be used translingually and in later time they could be attested in other languages as well.)
• "excludes scientific, legal, and medical Latin for no particularly compelling reason? (We also don't include very much ecclesiastical and even medieval Latin.)"
  That's part of Latin (if it's really scientific, legal or medical Latin and not for example non-Latin English or Translingual taxonomy with some Latin roots). If you consider linguistics to be a science, then there's for example precativus, a grammatical/linguistic and thus scientific term used in New Latin. Medieval and technical Latin might be missing in the English wiktionary as most dictionaries cover ancient Latin (Old, Classical and Late Latin) and as it might be more complicated to understand or find Medieval and technical Latin. For example, Medieval Latin virlupus (vir + lupus, meaning werewolf) is attestable, but one doesn't find it in L&S or OED, inflected forms like genitive *virlupi might be unattested, and Latin nominal compounds ({{compound|la|vir|lupus}}) might be somewhat uncommon and rather be a Germanic than Latin or Romance feature. Also, the English wiktionary also hasn't many Middle High German or Old Prussian terms (Category:Middle High German lemmas, Category:Old Prussian lemmas), but that doesn't mean it's unwanted.
• "With regard to specific epithets in general, we have been including all of the ones that inflect or potentially inflect with respect to gender as Latin, those that appear only in the genitive we deem Translingual. Do you have any thoughts about this?"
  Well, sapiens in Latin does inflect too. I don't know if it can inflect in Translingual or if only the nominative singular is used, but if it can inflect, then there are inflectable terms as Translingual. (In English and German there is the plural Homines sapientes, so Translingual might at least have inflection by number, though inflection by case might be missing - compare with the above discussion.)
  Obviously the practice is somewhat inconsequent. As Translingual terms can have a gender (e.g. Felis is feminine), I do not see any reason why inflectable terms couldn't be Translingual. If Translingual only has a nominative, then one could simply use a header like with "iroquoianus m (feminine iroquoiana, neuter iroquoianum)". ICZN (International Code of Zoological Nomenclature) even mentions Translingual suffixes in 29.2 and some of them have entries here: "Suffixes for family-group names. The suffix -OIDEA is used for a superfamily name, -IDAE for a family name, -INAE for a subfamily name, -INI for the name of a tribe, and -INA for the name of a subtribe." - and Translingual entries -oidea, -idae. That's like some Translingual grammar for taxonomical terms.
• "Should we have a category for all terms, whether we deem them now Latin or Translingual, that are ever used as specific epithets?"
  (a) Regarding "all": Well, it's "all words of all languages" and specific epithets are Translingual words. So it would be all. (b) Regarding the question whether or not there should be a category: IMHO, yes. There are Category:mul:Taxonomy and Category:mul:Taxonomic names, and why shouldn't there be Category:mul:Taxonomic names (specific epithets)? There could be many specific epithets, but there could also be many species names (Category:mul:Taxonomic names (species)) and there are already many English terms (Category:English lemmas). Right now, some specific epithets are labelled New Latin (Category:New Latin) which IMHO is worse than simply having Category:mul:Taxonomic names (specific epithets).
• "Would you be willing to work on rectifying all the L2 headers that you believe incorrect?"
  It wouldn't be the first time for me to do some amount of somewhat monotonic work and also not the first time to do some somewhat monotonic work in a wiki. Of course, there could be many incorrect headers and I can't say that I would find and fix all, but for example I could and would try to find and move all taxonomical terms from Category:New Latin to Category:mul:Taxonomic names (specific epithets). (By hand and without tools that would mean to check around 1000 entries which would take same time.)

-84.161.57.67 07:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

It's not that taxonomic names are different in kind from Latin, it's just that they're a very limited domain that doesn't provide the environment for more than a very limited subset of the grammar- just nouns and adjectives in the nominative and genitive. Within that domain, though, there's inflection for gender and number and the complete range of derivational morphology. The generic names may be only nominative singular, but the specific epithets agree with either the generic name if they're adjectives, or with the referent if they're nouns in apposition or nouns in the genitive. Sure, there are endings with different meanings and functions than in the rest of Latin, but they're integrated into the usual morphological machinery: to derive the name of the family that includes the genus Sphinx, you add the ending -idae to the genitive stem of the generic name to get Sphingidae.

To understand what's going on, you have to realize that Latin during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance filled a translingual role: it was the universal language of religion, government and science used by every nation. If you look at the early taxonomic works like w:Species plantarum, the entire text is in Latin, with the taxonomic names inflected like everything else. That's no longer true, but the continuity between then and now makes it hard to draw the line. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

After edit conflict:

Thanks for your careful and extensive reply.

1. Although I don't doubt that many taxonomic names cannot be found in actual translingual use, I don't see the point of challenging their categorization. We should be somewhat concerned with consistency in our user interface, which in this case would favor treated all taxonomic names as Translingual. The figleaf of "scientific" justification is that they can potentially be so used.
2. I think you are correct about the problem of attestation of many of the newer Latins.
3. In Taxonian (the "language" of taxonomic names which never occur in true scientific Latin), Homo sapiens does not have a plural. It is a proper noun, much like a Latin proper nouns that refers to a gens. So, sapientes ought not exist in Taxonian, though it would exist in scientific Latin in all likelihood.

   I suppose I should just bite the bullet and create Translingual inflection-line templates for the most common gender-inflecting taxonomic adjective epithets.

4. I also suppose that there really isn't much question that a category that included all taxonomic epithets, whether also found in Latin or only in Taxonian would be useful.
5. Any help would be appreciated. You have already helped by forcing a reopening of the discussion of these matters. BTW, you might consider registering: it makes it easier to have specialist discussions if the discussants have talk pages and there is the advantage of having a reputation. DCDuring TALK 15:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: I'm aware of Medieval and New Latin and the role Latin once had.
Well, one could draw lines, like between Latin used in Latin texts, and (pseudo-)Latin not used in Latin texts. So Linnaeus' work would clearly be Latin (more precisely New Latin) as Linnaeus' were able to write in Latin and did write in Latin. If Linnaeus' names were also used in English, French, German etc., it would also be English, French, German etc. (like English computer became Dutch and Italian computer and German Computer and like Latin pronomen became German Pronomen). iroquoianus however would at the moment not be Latin but pseudo-Latin English or Translingual or Taxonian (like pseudo-English German Handy and Showmaster and French baby-foot ATM are not English even though they look like English and not like German or French words). As taxonomical terms are already considered to be Translingual (Wiktionary:About Translingual) and as they can already have genders (e.g. Felis is feminine), I don't see any reason why iroquoianus (-a, -um) shouldn't be Translingual.
As for the Translingual grammar, there might be the need of a usage note at Wiktionary:About Translingual.

I just hit upon a distinction that may be useful: the formation of taxonomic names is in Latin, but the use of them is translingual. In other words, iroquoianus merits a Latin entry because it's used in the formation of taxonomic names (each taxonomic name including it being an independant use), but Aphiochaeta iroquoiana is purely translingual. To the objection that it's not used in sentences, I would counter that there are all kinds of restricted domains that never include sentences: royal titles, ingredient lists, names, etc. yellow-bellied sapsucker is definitely English, in spite of containing no verb. There's no way you could call "enriched flour, water, sugar, carrageenan, natural and artificial flavorings" an English sentence, and you will never see such a list with anything but nouns and adjectives, except for the occasional conjunction- but it's English. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, German Showmaster is also formed like an English word. In English it would be spelled *showmaster (*show-master, *show master), but as English computer became German Computer, and as some people would also spell it *Iroquoianus and only Fleischmanni in Latin the capitalisation difference shouldn't be a problem. And if we would use a French pseudo-anglicism like baby-foot or tennisman there wouldn't even be a capitalisation difference. Do we say that the formation of Showmaster and tennisman is English as they are formed like English words? I doubt it. But well, even if we say the formation is English, there aren't English entries for it, as they aren't used in English. In the etymology section of the German word Showmaster it is mentioned (or would be mentioned, because the entry doesn't exist ATM) that it is formed from English show and master. So in the etymology section of Translingual iroquoianus we can say it's coming from ? and Latin -anus, where ? could be English Iroquian which got restored to an hypothetical Latin form by ignoring the sounds and spellings before the ending; or maybe it's even just English Iroquian + Latin ending -us. And in case of modern Taxonian, I guess it's justified to have doubts about the formation being Latin. john-tuckeri doesn't look like a Latin word, even though it has a Latin -i at the end. (All German pseudo-anglicisms I could think of look like English words, but that's also because English has so many ways of creating new words and contains so many words from many languages and regions.)
German doesn't have royals anymore and I'm not well-educated regarding royal titles, but I would think they can be used in sentences, like Napoleon being "Kaiser der Franzosen und König von Italien" (Emperor of the French and King of Italy) and Ferdinand I. being "Wir Ferdinand der Erste, von Gottes Gnaden Kaiser von Oesterreich; König von Hungarn und Böhmen, dieses Namens der Fünfte, König der Lombardei und Venedigs, von Dalmatien, Croatien, Slavonien, Galizien, Lodomerien und Illirien; König von Jerusalem rc.; Erzherzog von Oesterreich, Großherzog von Toscana; Herzog von Lothringen, von Salzburg, Steyer, Kärnthen, Krain, Großfürst von Siebenbrgen; Markgraf von Mähren; Herzog von Ober- und Nieder-Schlesien, von Modena, Parma, Piacenza und Guastalla, von Auschwitz und Zator, von Teschen, Friaul, Ragusa und Zara; gefürsteter Graf von Habsburg, von Tirol, von Kyburg, Görz und Gradiska; Fürst von Trient und Brixen; Markgraf der Ober- und Nieder-Lausitz und in Istrien; Graf von Hohenembs, Feldkirch, Bregenz, Sonnenberg rc.; Herr von Triest, von Cattaro und auf der windischen Mark". Okey, one could argue that "Wir Ferdinand ... windischen Mark." is no complete sentence as it doesn't contain a verb. But then the problem would be to define sentence. Is an exclamation like "Hello!" or "Hello, Peter!" already a sentence, or is it just a something between word and sentence? If it is a sentence, one could argue that an ingredient list can be a sentence, even if it's no complete sentence with a verb and maybe an object. If not, at least sometimes one might find a complete sentence with an ingredient list, like "One needs 200ml water, 300g sugar and 5 bananas."
Besides sentence-ness one could also consider the context. A "Hello!" in an English text would be English by context even if it's no sentence, and an ingredient list in a modern English cooking book is usually English, even if the ingredients aren't included in complete sentences. However, one could also consider the ingredient list to have mentionings and no usages (WT:CFI#Conveying meaning: "appearance in raw word lists"). As for royal titles: If an English book includes English titles in a list, it could just be mentionings and not usages. If an English book includes foreign titles, the context should indicate that they're foreign and not English, but then it should just be mentionings and not usages of the foreign titles in the foreign languages. So taxonomical terms in an English scientific work would be English by context even when they aren't included in complete sentences, or they would just be mentionings. Looking at google book results for iroquoianus:

• "APHIOCHAETA [actually with a AE ligature] IROQUOIANA, new species. Female.--Black, distinctly [...]" - English, though maybe just a mentioning and not a usage of "APHIOCHAETA IROQUOIANA".
• "... and (43) [the number refers to a picture] Megaselia iroquoiana (Malloch), ..." - either English or just a mentioning and not a usage (as indicated by the italics)
• "These are M. albidihalteris Felt, M agarici Lintner, and M. iroquoiana Malloch. - either English or just a mentioning and not a usage
• "Nocomis biguttatus, hornyhead chub .... Eimeria iroquoiana" - in some kind of list in an English book which has English text in the beginning; either English or just a mentioning and not a usage

Maybe iroquoianus ATM isn't even used but only mentioned? (In advance: No, I'm not saying that it should be deleted. I'd say it should be Translingual as it could be used and as it could be used translingually in English, French German, Spanish.

To sum it in case it's too long for some: iroquoianus should be Translingual and not Latin. -84.161.50.51 14:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@DCDuring:

• Well, iroquoianus could some day be attested in French, German etc., just like Homo sapiens is already attested German. So I would categorize it as Translingual too as it's theoretically Translingual and not restricted to English.
• BTW: I've found terms which could be Latin for Iroquois/Iroquoian, see diff (with the examples it almost gets too long, but without examples it would be less helpful). Maybe sometime someone checks the examples or finds even better examples so that the meaning of the Latin words can be verified and Latin entries can be created. If it would be ancient Latin, one could simply look into a dictionary to verify the meaning, but it's New Latin.
• The English wikipedia states: "The binomial name Homo sapiens was coined by Carl Linnaeus (1758)." If that's correct, than it's also Latin.
  Summary of the following longer part in {}: Taxonian should have a plural.
  {Google brought up one result (English book, 20th century, but I were only able too see google's text preview and not the book snippet) with "Homines sapientes albi xanthrochroici" which could be something like "blond-haired white wise Humans" (compare for example with xantho-, Xanthochroi). That could be a Taxonian plural. In a book about racial science (German book, according to google from 1937) there is "Subspecies III: Homines sapientes afri [line break] Linné 1758", which could be a Taxonian plural too and it could literally mean "african (black, negro?) wise Humans". A later German scientific book (from 1962 according to google) mentions this term too and somewhat explains the Taxonian word: "Eickstedt unterstellt beide große Varietäten der Subspecies III [both great varieties of subspecies III]: den Homines sapientes afri, also den Negriden [*Negrids, which is not the same as Negroids, but English might lack that German disctinction] [...]". These works are scientific and so it looks like there is a Taxonian plural. And maybe Latin had or could have plurals like Homines sapientes too just like English and German have such a plural.}
  PS: Also -oidea seems to be a Taxonian plural.
  PS 2: Homo sapiens already mentions a Translingual/Taxonian plural.
• Another argument, why Taxonian shouldn't be Latin could be this: Taxonian could miss Latin marons (or macra). Yes, macrons usually aren't used in Latin texts, but in good Latin dictionaries they are. But even good Taxonian dictionaries could miss marons as vowel lengths most likely aren't important in modern Taxonian. A German "Wörterbuch der Zoologie" (dictionary of zoology) from 2011 for example has euxinus and not a proper euxīnus. (Yes, an arbitrary example doesn't proof anything, but there could be more dictionaries with the lack of macrons.) So iroquoiānus with macron could be 'irregular' Taxonian even for a dictionary.
  Another one: German physiotherapists just learn the nominative and the genitive and usually just of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd declension for the Latin-based medical language or for medical terms used in medical-scientific German. Also astromers from the IAU just have the nominative and the genitive for their non-Latin Latin-based language, like Aquarius with genitive Aquarii and abbreviation Aqr. So a complete Latin declension with all six cases could be somewhat incorrect or misleading for modern Translingual, Taxonian, Astronian (IAU's astronomers' language). Wiktionary:About Translingual could mention that Taxonion declension can vary: Official Taxonian (ICZN and the like) just having two cases, Latin (like Linnaeus) maybe having six cases, English and modern New High German having one form for all their cases (the Homo sapiens, of/for/to the Homo sapiens, the Homines sapientes; der/des/dem/den Homo sapiens, die/der/den/die Homines sapientes). I would assume that French, Spanish and Italian decline it like English and German too.

-84.161.44.63 02:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

In 2013, there was a similar RFV, see Talk:albifrons. The result was to change the language from Latin to Translingual. But there is a huge difference between the old RFV and this RFV: albifrons could be attestable in Latin, and may it be in biological texts with taxonomic terms - but iroquoianus doesn't seem to be attestable in Latin, not even in biological texts with taxonomic terms. -84.161.63.28 15:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Moved to iroquoiana. - -sche (discuss) 04:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)