E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Ringum[fontem recensere]

I'm going to explain why I chose this word.

First, I don't think there are any citations for anellus, certainly not any showing actual use. The concept 'ring' was invented around 1890 in Germany (after Latin had fallen out of use completely among mathematicians) and work was conducted almost exclusively in German for some time. So I think borrowing the German word is appropriate, just as it has been borrowed into English.

So you're going to totally invent a new one? See VP:NF.--Rafaelgarcia 20:19, 5 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Second, I really don't like anellus. The term was presumably based on the Romance words, but there are plenty of words common to the Romance languages that are not and should not be used in Latin: indeed, even right next door in abstract algebra, 'group' would have to be gruppa based on Romance. The use of diminutives like anellus is typically Romance, not Latin; the usual words for 'ring' in Latin are 'anus' and 'an(n)ulus', and the word for 'ring' in general in the Romance languages is the same used for the mathematical concept.

Finally, as to citations. I welcome examples of genuine use of Latin words; but 'ring' is too young for that to be likely. I don't believe modern citations can be regarded with the same status, unless they indicate actual use and acceptation. After all, the compilers of Neo-Latin dictionaries just - admittedly - make up a lot of their constructions, and some of them are a bit silly and will never see use. So, to use the same example, making up Ringum is no different than Gurges ater.

Finally, as to the form of ringum. I tried to copy the German gender, which I thought was das Ring. I only find out now it's der Ring but I don't want to change now that I've 'published'. Pantocrator 20:10, 5 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

If anything the romance word should be used as a source. Finger ring in latin is annellus or anellus which maps directly onto the italian french spanish portegese romanian catalan galecian words for ring. Why would one ever prefer a german word in this context especially when it is the invention of a frenchman?--Rafaelgarcia 20:14, 5 Februarii 2010 (UTC).
In addition to everything else this article has serious grammar issues, subject adjective agreement, etc. I put maxdub to cover that--Rafaelgarcia 20:21, 5 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
"Is no different than "Gurges ater"": it is different because "gurges" and "ater" are Latin words, whereas "ringum" is not. "Anellus" is also a Latin word (from as far back as Plautus).
If you really "don't want to change when you've 'published'" you should consider whether wikis are the best place to publish! By their nature, they facilitate change and re-thinking by the original writer and others. But I'm sure you'll get used to that ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:29, 5 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
A lexical item includes not only the word but the sense of the word; adding a new sense to an existing word is no less an innovation than adding a new word. Gurges ater would not have meant anything in particular before we introduced the term as a Latinisation of 'black hole'.
Anellus is, then, a true borrowing from Romance, especially as the translation of 'ring' (from any language) would surely be anulus. I don't see why borrowing from Romance is preferable to borrowing from German; the ancients borrowed Greek words in technical senses, is this any different?
I do not believe gurges ater was used in Latin before we introduced it (at least not as more than a nonce term), nor were our other astronomical calques such as pumilio rubra etc. They are examples of us coining a Latin word for a concept that did not have one before. For an example that does involve a new word, try Iaz. It is acknowledge on the disputatione there that the noun did not exist in Latin before, and a new declension is adopted for it. This is an example of an orthographical (not phonetic; iaz doesn't sound like 'jazz') borrowing from English.
It is acknowledged by everyone that a Latin term in actual use should determine our usage, just as it does at other Wikipedias. But dictionaries are not an example of actual use, especially neo-Latin dictionaries whose explicit purpose is in part to create new words, and the English Wikipedia never settles disputes over titles with an appeal to a dictionary. It seems to me to be a reflection of that juvenile idea that whether something 'is a word' can be settled by whether it is in 'the dictionary'. Pantocrator 22:26, 5 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
Dictionaries provide evidence. The value to us of this evidence depends on the aims and methods of the lexicographers in each case.
Let's be precise. Anellus is a Latin word. Its use in the algebraic sense, if we agree to use it thus, would be a calque or loan-translation from modern languages (not from Romance in particular). The choice of "anellus" rather than "anulus" is suggested by the existing use in this sense of direct descendants of the Latin word "anellus" in various Romance languages.
The reasons that you have given for choosing "ringum" seem to amount to "I really don't like anellus" and "I tried to copy the German gender, which I thought was das Ring; I only find out now it's der Ring but I don't want to change". One who relies on such arguments would do well (I think!) not to describe the arguments of others as "juvenile". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:35, 6 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
First, as to the gender thing, I was only attempting to admit my mistake. That's juvenile? I'd have no problem making it ringus instead; I just don't think it absolutely necessary to do so.
Anellus is the only word for 'ring' that's descended to Romance (it's very common for a diminutive form to have taken over in proto-Romance), so that's not much of an argument. Anyway, I'm sure the type of ring that Hilbert had in mind when coining the term was not one you wear on your finger but a cycle (Lat. circulus). I don't propose using that word, though, as it has other meanings (conversely German does not use Ring to mean circle). The normal solution to this is indeed to borrow the original word.
Finally, I already commented on what dictionaries can do in my last reply. The sorts of dictionary entries I'm discussing are reflections only of the personal preferences of the compiler. Pantocrator 21:07, 6 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
Pantocrator I think you are missing the main point. According to our norms even if you borrowed from german, the thing to do is use "ring" as an undeclinable. We avoid creating any new words altogether. You also I think miss the point of the latin ethos altogether. Culturally and liquistically Romans are a conservative lot. THey borrowed from Greek sometimes but that was an exception due to the fact that the educated were all bilingual in Greek and Latin. Most Greek literature was not translated into latin because no one of the ancients felt the need.
As a lesser point, with all honesty you have to admit the form ringum has absolute no linguistic support in latin, but anellus does. Spanish for instance has both anulo (latin anulus) and anillo (latin anellus); does it require much imagination at all to see why that came about? I'm sure you can find anellus as the proper latin translation if you look hard enough. I have not found it but I'm 95% sure that the romance is anillo because the latin was anellus. This is based on many many such examples were I have verified that this is the fact. Unfortunately, not all of this literature can be found on the net, which makes searching a matter of pouring through books in a library and hoping they have not thrown them away or locked them in some basement as "useless".
Finally, I wonder what is your point in pressing this ringum on us because you have to know that we are not about to change our policy on coinages. Either anellus or anulus would be an attempted translation, ring would be a borrowing, ringum is just something you made up to waste our time apparently.--Rafaelgarcia 22:38, 6 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
Three short things; On anillo < anellus, see the etymology according to the DRAE. On anellum vs. ringum, I would like to say that (completely) making up, like ringum is not at all the same as translating a word into Latin, where the Latin word exists (like ring into anellum). On dictionaries, cum Romae fueritis, Romano vivite more as they say. Here dictionaries are the norm in order to prevent making up words. --Xaverius 22:55, 6 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
I never disputed that 'anillo' comes from 'anellus'. I think I've already said what I need to say about dictionaries. For the rest, see my reply to Rafael below. Pantocrator 01:30, 7 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
(responsum Rafaelgarcia exdentatum)
First, 'ring' and ringum are the same word. Adding grammatical endings to borrowings in no stranger to Latin, the first example that comes to mind is carrus and similarly all classical and mediaeval words taken from Celtic or Germanic are fit into a Latin declension. This is what borrowing is: naturalising a foreign word so that it's no longer foreign. It's also what languages with mandatory inflection, such as (I know) Finnish and Lithuanian, do today. Latin strongly attempts to avoid indeclinables other than proper names.
I know that anellus has support in the Romance languages, but that is not support in Latin. In the same sense, they universally support calling a horse caballus, but that doesn't mean we should in Latin! A translation of a word is a rendering of the sense into another language, not the word itself. Anellus can not be considered a translation of ring in the mathematical sense because the word never meant anything like that before; it is a borrowing. As I pointed out, the closest possible translation would probably be circulus, which is by the way actually cognate to English and German 'Ring', while anellus is not.
Regarding adding ending, it would appear you have never read the bible, nor have considered the many dozens of important words that in proper Latin are normally left undeclined (and would be considered wrong to decline them). Perhaps I am assuming too much knowledge on your part, but to hold such an opinion as you argue for for me is tantamount to wholesale evasion. And as point entirely beside the point raised above, what does an algebraic ring have to do with a circle anyway? As far as I know: absolutely nothing.-- 19:57, 7 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
There are a few indeclinables in Latin, but excepting foreign words, they are a closed class. The Bible by its nature uses many foreign words. What words, other than proper names, are left indeclinable in the Bible? I would guess rather few and obvious foreignisms like 'shibboleth'.
What does an algebraic ring have to do with a circle? Well, more than it does with a ring on one's finger! Hilbert obviously saw some relation, or he would not have coined the word. This page explains one possible relation. To anyone that knows anything about mathematics, it's obvious that Hilbert was thinking of the meaning circulus, not anulus and certainly not anellus! Pantocrator 02:53, 8 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
I don't think we really have a policy. I don't think we have enforced, or ever could enforce, a prohibition against 'coinages' because of the nature of modern Latin. I have above cited examples of our creating of new words: gurges ater etc. are coinages, although quite justifiable ones, given that again they never had that meaning before in Latin. And even if you accept the linguistically absurd claim that we should distinguish new words from new meanings, I gave you the example iaz which is admittedly a brand-new coinage (vide Disputatio:Iaz); the sources we have would require musica iazensis or some such. And again, I fully agree with the coinage of that word; it ought to be a single word in Latin as in other languages, and the form of that borrowing is what one would expect.
If no one produces a citation for gurges ater, then HONESTY requres that page should definitely be rewritten to reflect the fact that gurges ater is a 'suggested translation' and not an established one.-- 19:57, 7 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
Well, it's out there, attested around the internet. See My Playlist by Gurges Ater and "Gurges-Ater is latin for 'Black Hole', which I just think is cool" (LucasForums). IacobusAmor 20:39, 7 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
It's most likely that they got it from us, given that our page is older than those citations. We have become an authority on Latin use in this internet age. Pantocrator 02:53, 8 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
That's absolutely right, we have; and this is why I and others insist that we must be careful in choosing our titles and our vocabulary. OK, we may seem a bit sticky on such issues. But you'll see why: others will see what we do and will follow us like sheep; others again will see what we do and will laugh at us if our choice of terms for modern concepts seems ridiculous. OK, let's allow ourselves to be laughed at in a good cause; but let's not invite mockery unnecessarily ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:38, 8 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
I agree too, which is why we must use judgement and not always accept everything that the dictionaries tell us. It doesn't matter for this page as too few people care about mathematics; but I do think naming a mathematical concept after something you wear on your finger is somewhat ridiculous! Pantocrator 14:39, 8 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
I am virtually positive that anneau/anillo/anello was made in Romance and not in Latin. Besides the fact that it would very likely be anulus if it were the latter, Latin simply was not used at the time. According to this compilation, the word 'Ring' or 'Zahlring' was first used by Hilbert ca. 1894 - though the concept was decades older - and not recorded in English until 1930 (but it must have been is use before that). Latin was in a minority even in mathematics by the end of the 18c. and rapidly declined; the last paper written for Crelle's [a famous math journal that accepted all languages] in Latin was 1855, and the last Latin journal was presumably the aforementioned Gottingen one ending in 1837. Pantocrator 01:30, 7 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
We do have a policy, Noli fingere. That it is done and it has passed unnoticed still does not mean that it doesn't exist. On the accuracy of anellus in this case, I have no idea so I won't give any opinion... all these maths are Greek to me--Xaverius 10:26, 7 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I have seen that. My point is that that policy has not been, can not be, and should not be strictly enforced. The legitimate purpose of such a policy is to tell novices that they should try to find an established Latin name before making up something. Pantocrator 02:53, 8 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
If you propose changing the policy, the best place to do so is at Disputatio Vicipaediae:Noli fingere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:24, 8 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
The policy does not only apply to new people, it applies to everyone, that is why it is a norm--Xaverius 13:28, 8 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
Apparently it doesn't apply to everyone in the sense I mean, or we wouldn't have iaz, which is an unambiguous violation - the page lists no source for the name, and the disputatione makes it pretty clear there wasn't one; furthermore a declension was added, whereas Rafaelgarcia above asserts that 'borrowings' must be indeclinable. And similarly, musica rock (which should, I think, be roc to parallel iaz) has you serious debating the form on the disputatione without worrying about having a citation. Pantocrator 14:39, 8 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
With regards to Iaz, there are many pages that contain infelicities such as these and they should be fixed up. Early users were making up names, and the result was chaos here where people would argue endlessly about what is a better latin name or translation (see this discussion for an example). The consensus (perhaps someone can find the discussion somewhere last year or the year before) as I remember it with the music pages was to render them as musica jazz, musica rock, etc...(not sure about whether caps are right here) and simply give other possible translations after like musica rockica, iazensis, etc... I remember Iaz or Iazensis was actually the single one that did have a latin source in the lexicon latinitatis....maybe that is what happened? ....Anyway this very same policy is the one we have pointed out above. In the case of ring, we already have a translation into modern latin languages: anillo, etc.. which in the received latin (of this wiki) would be anellus. Thus translation is evident. Your argument about names making sense is well received, but unconvincing. Names and especially technical terms often don't make sense etymologically. Is a is the cpu really in the center of your computer?, is a manifold something with many plies? is a field (physics) really open space? is a vector (math) actually traveling somewhere, is a ring round or close in on itself in any special way to suggest an actual ring or circle or loop? The answer is no, in which ever language you pick. perhaps it would be interesting to find out why the person that named it named it so. It will probably shed very little light on your question: like why a quark is called a quark or an up quark is called up or why color charge is called color charge since you can't see any colors....--Rafaelgarcia 15:04, 8 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
Two comments on the discussion: (1) Can the Zahlring be compared to a watch dial? If so, one word for consideration might be gyrus as a semisynonym of circulus but perhaps a bit more "dynamic". (2) I guess the puristic "iaz" stems from those days when <j> was a littera odiosa; by now there are many lemmata with "exotic" letters. Methinks "iaz" is hideous; my option would be "jazz" (indecl.); in fact, the main reason why I've never contributed to the article on iaz is that I just can't get me around to writing the word form "iaz". :-) --Neander 15:29, 8 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
Yes, let's have jazz! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:54, 8 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
As long as we pronounce it /iazz/. :) IacobusAmor 16:30, 8 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
Ah, you may never know how I pronounce it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:36, 8 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
No problem! Doing it in the English way in my home country would be looked upon as ridiculous. :-) --Neander 17:05, 8 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad we managed to get to an agreement here (on jazz at least)!--Xaverius 17:22, 8 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
(responsum ad Neander)
(1) Yes, probably. Finite groups and rings are often compared (in layman's terms) with 'clock arithmetic', and the name was likely derived from something similar (the group of units or of generators). As for gyrus, I've seen it as the term Newton used for orbis (astronomia), but it seems it can be a synonym for circulus. If ringus or ringum is not acceptable, I was desiring to name it the literal translation circulus numerorum, which is something I can imagine used in mathematical Latin. (2) No opinion on this. However, iaz probably is the best possible Latinisation, if we were invent one; it's onlt that our policy says we must not. Pantocrator 02:09, 9 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
(responsum Rafaelgarcia exdentatum)
First, as to 'modern Latin languages'. I wasn't aware that we could treat Romance languages as equivalent to Latin for providing attestations; in fact, I'm pretty sure that isn't the general policy. Latin is supposed to be an international language and Romance speakers should not enjoy any special advantage. Indeed, English generally stays closer to the original meanings of Latinate words than do the Romance languages.
Second, the etymological argument. In brief, I think that all your examples do have a reasonable degree of conceptual agreement, about as much as could be expected. I gave a link above for the possible origin of 'Ring', showing (as if proof were needed) that it corresponds to circulus. Pantocrator 02:09, 9 Februarii 2010 (UTC)