Disputatio:Fetus biennalis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
E Vicipaedia
Pagina huic coniuncta e conversione paginae „Biennial bearing“ sitús en.wikipedia.org orta est.
Auctoribus illius paginae hic enumeratis gratias agimus.
Die angegliederte Seite basiert ursprünglich auf einer Übersetzung von Biennial bearing aus en.wikipedia.org. Eine Liste der Autoren ist hier verfügbar.
English language
The attached page originated as a translation from the page "Biennial bearing" on the site en.wikipedia.org.
We are grateful to the authors of that page as listed here.
La apuda paĝo origine baziĝas sur traduko de Biennial bearing el en.wikipedia.org. Listo de la ĝentilaj artikolverkintoj haveblas ĉi tie.

Bien.....[fontem recensere]

Traupman has biennialis, not biennalis. There's also the "very rare" (L&S) biennis, which Ainsworth has and Stearn recommends. (Maybe Linnaeus used it?) White's has biennius. And there's the widely known noun biennium. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:23, 1 Aprilis 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for commenting. Not sure where White found "biennius". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:08, 1 Aprilis 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
White credits biennius, -a, -um to "Pl."; maybe that's an error. It's not inconceivable that a noun having the form biennium implies an adjective having the form biennius, -a, -um. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:38, 1 Aprilis 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't find "biennialis" in Lewis & Short (I'm not sure therefore if Traupman's pen slipped) and the simplest move, I thought, was to "biennalis". But I agree with you, "biennis" is quite possible and perhaps better (Stearn is relevant). Feel free to move again! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:08, 1 Aprilis 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
English biennial assumes a Latin biennialis, but that's a backdoor attestation, and genuine classical forms should be preferred if they exist, unless some botanical authority (such as Linnaeus) has decreed otherwise. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:38, 1 Aprilis 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Biennis may be rare, but there are a respectable number of occurrences in the classical authors (though more for the noun biennium), and none for biennalis or biennialis. Lesgles (disputatio) 12:41, 1 Aprilis 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed, practically all the terms listed in that concordance attest the noun biennium (not the adjective biennis), but the authority of Stearn can't be denied. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:38, 1 Aprilis 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True, I didn't look closely enough; perhaps all of the bienni there are the genitive singular of biennium, and Gafflot goes as far as saying biennis is a "mot forgé." But I agree about Stearn's authority here. Lesgles (disputatio) 14:23, 1 Aprilis 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]