Disputatio:Ebullitio

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

de lemmate priori "fervere"[fontem recensere]

Verbs normally are not encyclopaedic entries. Nouns such are. Pantocrator, is there really a problem if the entry is ebullitio rather than fervere? --Xaverius 12:13, 20 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)

It's syntactically awkward to say, in Latin, "Fervere ... est alteratio ...", while "fervor ... est alteratio" would be syntactically ok but semantically awkward, because it lacks the required meaning. For this reason, and for the reason mentioned by Xaverius, it's better to opt for ebullitio. --Neander 13:23, 20 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
As I said on the taberna we have at least one article titled by a verb already - nere. Infinitives are indeed nouns, and are equivalent to gerunds in English. The same reasoning goes for my superalgere and supercalere (a verb form was chosen for the latter to parallel the former). Pantocrator 13:44, 20 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
I actually suggested the verb right away there, and no one specifically objected to it. And I gave reasons there, and I'll add another one - our picture on punctum fervoris is titled aqua fervens, not aqua ebulliens (or any of the spelling variations). Pantocrator 00:26, 21 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
That summarium, I should say, became too long for me to follow properly, as I could not check regularly the wiki for a long time. However, from my Romance-language background, there is a clear semantic difference between "el hervir" and "ebullición". Aqua fervens works well as a description, but I wouldn't use it as a main title. If there is a noun already that describes the concept I do not see why we should force an infinitive into its "noun form". Nere should be changed too.--Xaverius 10:14, 21 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
Also one must ask is punctum fervens the best translation of "boiling point". If not, it's of no use to the question at hand. My instinct is nay. I can't wrap my hand around such a transferred epithet as to imagine speakers of English think that it were the actual point, which were boiling, and not the water at a particular point. Thus punctum ebullitionis I think translates the sense of boiling point, punctum fervens rather the words themselves.--Ioscius 11:49, 21 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
Rectissime dixisti. In English, the present active participle and the verbal noun happen to have the same ending - -ing - but their meanings are completely unrelated. Boiling point is point of boiling, not point that boils. In Latin ergo not punctum fervens, but punctum fervendi or punctum ebullitionis. --Gabriel Svoboda 15:47, 21 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
Except that we have punctum fervoris, not punctum fervens. The former is a correct translation of 'point of boiling'. The English verbal noun (gerund) is equivalent to both of Xavierus's forms; for the reasons already stated here and the Taberna thread I preferred the former. Pantocrator 23:00, 21 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
PC you're wrong that punctum fervoris is a correct translation. Look at the definition of fervor L&S: it means 'a boiling heat' not 'boiling' or 'being boiling hot': heat is not the same as boiling. The verb fervere does mean to 'steam/smoke' and contains the meaning "to boil" as a secondary sense so at least punctum fervendi would be ok. Punctum fervescendi would be even closer since fervescere means "to become boiling hot, to begin to boil". But neither of these captures the idea of boiling/bubbling as opposed to evaporating as punctum ebullitionis.
On the other hand, no one mentions what term the chemists used: the would be the right terminus technicus no?--24.107.235.195 01:05, 22 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
Right, there has to be a term. I didn't do a thorough search for all terms, but punctum fervens turns up but nothing on google.--Ioscius 11:28, 22 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
That would be, yes. Unhappily for all this, Latinitas pura (secundum Cassell's) doesn't translate 'boiling-point' by a noun, and its ordinary idiom seems to yield, for example: aqua in eo est ut ferveat 'the water is at the boiling-point'. Professors warn us to be wary of translating modern syntax directly into Latin syntax. IacobusAmor 11:23, 22 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
punctum ebullitionis is moderately well attested. —Muke 11:31, 22 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
Quite well, it seems, sed solum recentiore Latinitate; as a modern technical term then, punctum ebullitionis seems well supported. IacobusAmor 11:42, 22 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
Vel gradus fervendi &c.? (Centigrade, nomen Anglicum, in mente habuimus.) IacobusAmor 16:37, 21 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
That would rather translate degree of boiling instead. The concept/phenomenon of a boiling point is actually more primitive than 'temperature' or 'degree' and as such is used to define the temperture scale.--24.107.235.195 01:44, 22 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)