Disputatio:Minerale

"Minerale est materia purum chemica compositione"

Will a native English-speaker kindly let me know how purum is grammatical here? The only available neuter noun for it to modify seems to be Minerale, but we don't ordinarily treat a lemma that way, as it would then cry out to be Minerale purum. Nor is purum likely to be an adverb, as Cassell's gives the adverb as pūrē. What gives? IacobusAmor 19:30, 1 Novembris 2008 (UTC)

Well, I suppose an English speaker might be tempted to write "A mineral is a material, pure in its chemical composition" thus, but you might just ask Ioscius who apparently put it there around the beginning of the year. —Mucius Tever 23:55, 1 Novembris 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but aside from the omission of an obligatory comma, that pure is modifying material, so the Latin must then be materia, pura. The thing that grammatically has a composition is the material, not the mineral. That's why the phrase puzzles. ¶ Also, the larger context—Minerale est materia purum chemica compositione, saepissime cum constitutione atomica perordinata et coitione rigida—is an odd rendering of the English: "A mineral is a naturally occurring substance formed through geological processes that has a characteristic [not 'pure'] chemical composition, a highly ordered atomic structure, and specific physical properties." IacobusAmor 00:07, 2 Novembris 2008 (UTC)

"mineral" aut "minerale"...

...quaerit --Alex1011 11:39, 21 Iulii 2010 (UTC)

Evidenter fuit ille Pantocrator qui paginam movit ad hoc nomen sensu egens.--173.70.154.122 12:08, 21 Iulii 2010 (UTC)