Disputatio:Copiatrum alcoholiferum

"Duplicator spiritus" is way too English; in Latin, it might mean 'a person who doubles the breath'. My suggestion is: copiatrum alcoholicum (cf. the French page). Neander (disputatio) 23:59, 9 Martii 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but doesn't NF apply to suffixes also? --Robert.Baruch (disputatio) 15:31, 10 Martii 2012 (UTC)

Robert, sorry but I'm not sure if I understand what you mean. Do you mean that derivation of words by means of productive suffixes might run against NF? Neander (disputatio) 19:31, 10 Martii 2012 (UTC)

That's what I thought, that it would be against NF? --Robert.Baruch (disputatio) 16:05, 12 Martii 2012 (UTC)

I guess that Robert is right there, though others might wonder, as I do, whether this concept can be explained at all without some neologism ... I have to agree with Neander, on the other hand, that "duplicator spiritus" won't work (a) because an -or should be a person, not a tool (b) because "spiritus" (so far as I know) does not have the meaning you attribute to it here or anything approaching it, and (c) because the genitive relationship between the two nouns can hardly carry the required sense. This machine is not a "duplicator of spirit", it's a duplicator of text. I'm a long way (like 10,000 miles) from my desk but I agree, I think, that you have to look to "alcool-" or some other chemical term to pin down the medium here; potential alternatives "spiritus vini" and "aqua vitae" (etc.) would just be too misleading. You'd then be calling it a "duplicator of liquor", useful but not what we have in mind. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:28, 12 Martii 2012 (UTC)

LRL has duplicatore (duplicator) = instrumentum duplicatorium. They're allowed to make it up; we're allowed to use it. But the question above still stands: are we allowed to use productive suffixes on words for which they have never before been used? --Robert.Baruch (disputatio) 01:03, 13 Martii 2012 (UTC)

In Taberna, you're asking for "a general method for translating compound nouns". To put it bluntly, asking for such a general method, by itself, seems to involve an invitation to violate (a rigorous interpretation of) NF. Insofar as NF implies the idea that the seat of all Latin skill lies outside Vicipaedia Latina, I'm against it, though I readily admit that Vicipaedians make a mixed group (but so do extra-Vicipaedians, too). Neander (disputatio) 03:58, 13 Martii 2012 (UTC)

Answering Robert, I don't want to malign anybody but I think I occasionally do it and I think Iacobus occasionally does. Actually it's pretty obvious when a really silly compound is invented, and the real explanation for our policy is (as you would guess) that to have a rule "don't ever do it" is easier than to have an argument whenever it's done badly, as it often is. I would not vote for removing the rule, but I would whisper: "Ignore all rules." Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 06:16, 13 Martii 2012 (UTC)

Commenting on Robert's comment on copiatrum alcoholicum, I admit that it was a creation of my own, but it didn't cross my mind to think that wielding productive patterns of Latin word formation would involve NF. Neander (disputatio) 17:28, 13 Martii 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to involve NF to me either. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:14, 14 Martii 2012 (UTC)

In any case, now I find copiatrum in Lexicon Finnico-Latino-Finnicum by Reijo Pitkäranta, and alcoholicum in Epistula Leonina XIV. Now, having quoted outside sources, per definitionem wiser than us, the fears of NF violation are repelled, at least in the case at hand. ¶ It may be worth discussing how the machine should be named. "Duplicator spiritus" is what results from putting English spirit duplicator in Latin guise. More technically, "duplicator spiritus" is what results from taking English signifiants and forgetting about signifiés. This has happened more than once in our Vicipaedia: it's alluringly easy to take a Latinate English word and put it in Latin garments without too much paying heed to the fact that the meaning structure may not be the same in those languages. A telling example is Engl. to duplicate, which is simply too easy to transfer to Lat. duplicare, omitting the fact that, in Latin, duplicare means 'to double', not 'to duplicate'. ¶ As far as "copiatrum alcoholicum" is concerned, I took the idea from French duplicateur à alcool, thinking, as I did, that, in Latin, a good pattern might be "Noun + Adjective" (cf. machine à vapeur = machina vaporaria). In medical Latin, spirit is spiritus fortis but copiatrum spirituale might bring forth ecclesiastical connotations. :-) This is the mental history which brought forth copiatrum alcoholicum. I don't say that I'm fully satisfied with it. Therefore, I sincerily invite everyone to come up with a better suggestion. In any case, the sooner the title is changed, the better. Neander (disputatio) 17:28, 13 Martii 2012 (UTC)

It might help to recall that in noun-noun compounds in English, the first noun is often conceptually plural, though it has a singular form. (This is changing a bit, particularly in Britain, but it's the structure we've inherited from our Germanic past.) A car park is a parking place for cars (pl.). A concert hall is a hall for concerts. A violin section is a section of violins. A toothbrush is a brush for teeth. A football is a ball for feet. A trade school is a school where people learn trades. A hairball is a ball of hairs. A road map is a map of roads. A spirit duplicator is a duplicator of/by/with spirits. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:10, 14 Martii 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see you say "particularly in Britain". I agree with your main point 100% and I don't think this is changing much in Britain. But maybe you've seen some examples ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 22:31, 14 Martii 2012 (UTC)

The one that comes first to mind is trades union for trade union. Another is arts center, but that could be an Americanism; it's been around over here since the 1960s or before. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:10, 15 Martii 2012 (UTC)

Ah, hmm, good examples! I suspect that both of those were formed "consciously" to be inclusive -- emphasising that more than one trade and more than one art may be involved (but this is just my guess). In everyday speech people say "trade union" ... and they probably never talk about the "arts center" at all :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:53, 15 Martii 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'd agree that these are probably conscious formations in the face of a pattern that, in some people's minds, has become wrongly exclusive. The one with arts, in particular, has to fight the perception that art = drawing, painting, sculpture, etc., but not music, dance, theater, etc., so a building that houses multiple such activities must be an arts center, not an art center. Similarly, according to Google, arts councils abound. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:16, 15 Martii 2012 (UTC)

OK, so we have copiatrum (what is the etymology?) But if indeed we have alcoholicum from the above-named Epistle, then it simply means "made derived from alcohol", so a copiatrum alcoholicum is a copying machine made derived from alcohol. Nf includes changing the sense of the word, doesn't it? Must we use a circumlocution such as machina alcoholis copiandi (A machine of copying by means of alcohols)? --Robert.Baruch (disputatio) 17:49, 15 Martii 2012 (UTC)

Fortasse copiatrum alcoholiferum ? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:16, 15 Martii 2012 (UTC)

It contains or bears alcohol? That's an interesting construction. Hmm. That might be sufficient to differentiate it from other copiatra, say laseriferum, atramentiferum... matriciferum? --Robert.Baruch (disputatio) 21:37, 15 Martii 2012 (UTC)

Macte, Iacobe! Neander (disputatio) 23:09, 15 Martii 2012 (UTC)

I know that I was not really paying too much attention, but when I first saw the new name of this machine, I immediately thought it was an alcoholometre!--Xaverius 22:18, 14 Martii 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, or a duplicator that runs on alcohol instead of electricity. :-) As i said, I urge everyone to invent a better term. Neander (disputatio) 09:37, 15 Martii 2012 (UTC)