Disputatio:Quillajaceae
Are we allowed to move to the lemma, Quillaiaceae? Harrissimo 20:46, 19 Martii 2008 (UTC).
- Hmm. Botanical Latinists use j, so we have to make clear (at least in the infobox and in the text) that the correct botanical form has a j. I don't know if we've established a rule for what our lemma should be in such cases. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 22:11, 19 Martii 2008 (UTC)
- I normally use j when citing the scientific binomial name, but not in article titles or lemmas. Of course I have often argued for treating biological names as "foreign" even though they're mostly Latin or at least pseudo-classical. I always italicize them and do my best to keep them in the nominative: part of their purpose is to be international, and therefore I try to keep them as recognizable to non-Latin-speakers as possible, so to my mind j's are fine in that context. But when I "borrow" a scientific name, I normally make it comply with our rules (so quillajaceae > quillaiaceae), and with the norms of classical Latin (Deinonychus > dinonychus, Ankylosaurus > ancylosaurus. But then what to do with things like Kentrosaurus vs. Centrosaurus?) --Iustinus 23:07, 19 Martii 2008 (UTC)
- For the record: I agree with all that, and we should keep Centrosauros distinct from Kentrosaurus. IacobusAmor 23:25, 19 Martii 2008 (UTC)
- Given that they're pronounced the same in Latin, even if we keep the spelling we should probably add some sort of distinguishing adjective. We have a ton of cases where we need to do that anyway, given how used and reused Latin terms are. --Iustinus 23:31, 19 Martii 2008 (UTC)
- For the record: I agree with all that, and we should keep Centrosauros distinct from Kentrosaurus. IacobusAmor 23:25, 19 Martii 2008 (UTC)
- I normally use j when citing the scientific binomial name, but not in article titles or lemmas. Of course I have often argued for treating biological names as "foreign" even though they're mostly Latin or at least pseudo-classical. I always italicize them and do my best to keep them in the nominative: part of their purpose is to be international, and therefore I try to keep them as recognizable to non-Latin-speakers as possible, so to my mind j's are fine in that context. But when I "borrow" a scientific name, I normally make it comply with our rules (so quillajaceae > quillaiaceae), and with the norms of classical Latin (Deinonychus > dinonychus, Ankylosaurus > ancylosaurus. But then what to do with things like Kentrosaurus vs. Centrosaurus?) --Iustinus 23:07, 19 Martii 2008 (UTC)
j or i[fontem recensere]
Justinus is right, it is not good deal to latinized twice --Penarc 03:20, 22 Martii 2008 (UTC)