Disputatio:Infusum

Infusion? Infusum?[fontem recensere]

This is copied from Disputatio:Thea.

Even if we called it infusio and not infusion, this still wouldn't be right. It doesn't mean the same thing in Latin, does it? Infusio means a pouring in, of sorts, not an osmotic process...--Ioscius ^(disp) 12:53, 24 Iulii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems similar to Spanish: all kinds of tea that are not made of camilla siniensis are called "infusión" in that language. The question is which modern language we want to prefer if there's nothing similar in latin (same as in my question above).--Partonopier 13:10, 24 Iulii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hispanice tisana et Francogallice Angliceque tisane (< Latine ptisana < Graece ptisanē 'crushed barley') = 'an infusion (as of dried herbs) used as a beverage or for medicinal effects' (Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary). IacobusAmor 13:35, 24 Iulii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still doesn't speak to the issue of whether or not infusio is the correct Latin word...--Ioscius ^(disp) 13:56, 24 Iulii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It observes that, for the concept in question, ptisana is a correct Latin word. As for English infusion, Ainsworth's (eighteenth-century) English–Latin dictionary defines it as infusio and says Pliny used it. What more could one want? IacobusAmor 14:57, 24 Iulii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Habeo nomen infusum (2. decl. neut.) e lingua Latina apothecariorum. Sententiam autem rescribo quia, si ex aliis plantis parata est, non est thea! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:21, 24 Iulii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ainsworth's (see above) has infusus (4th declension) and says Pliny used it, but it doesn't have infusum. IacobusAmor 14:57, 24 Iulii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This website, which looks like a reliable one, translates as infusio, but probably in the wrong context... --Harrissimo 16:45, 24 Iulii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[Answering Iacobus]: Yes, Pliny did use infusus (4th declension) but not in the required sense. His sentence is sonitus auris emendat infusu: infusu here means "the pouring in" of some medicine or other into the unfortunate patient's ears, not the beverage that results from pouring hot water on to the leaves of a plant!—

—Hey, don't get all excited: that's the primary meaning of the word infusion in English. See the OED: an infusion is "The action of pouring in (a liquid), or fact of being poured in; that which is poured in. Now chiefly fig., as in 'the infusion of new blood'" ! IacobusAmor 12:28, 8 Augusti 2007 (UTC)—[reply]

—Infusio (according to Lewis and Short) has the same problem: it doesn't, in classical Latin, mean what we mean by "an infusion". I agree with Ioscius on that. And ptisana is also difficult because its literal meaning is specifically "barley water". There may yet be a term with a better pedigree than my infusum (2nd decl. neut.) (for which, Joseph Ince, The Latin Grammar of Pharmacy (Londinii: Baillière, Tindall & Cox, 1898)), but I haven't seen the evidence of it yet. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:49, 24 Iulii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an expert on neither infusions nor Pliny, but I can report that Ainsworth's dictionary defines infusio as "a pouring in or upon, a steeping, an infusion, Plin." It defines infusus as "an infusion, or steeping in. Sonitus aurium [sic] emendat infusu, Plin." Perhaps the sense of steeping has changed. IacobusAmor 18:23, 24 Iulii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Iacobe, I missed this till now. Ainsworth is maybe a bit outdated as a source for what Pliny said and meant. Lewis and Short is slightly better (see infusio) and while they cite Pliny, they don't give "infusion" as a possible translation for this word. If you check Pliny directly, I think you'll agree with them.—

—If, as the OED shows for English, infusion can start as meaning 'a pouring in' and then, over the centuries, begin acquiring the sense of 'a steeping', why can't the Latin do so too? Many current words (in English and Latin and every other language) have participated in that sort of process. IacobusAmor 12:34, 8 Augusti 2007 (UTC)—[reply]

It could. You may yet show that it has. But meanwhile, Harrissimo and I have shown that infusum actually has this precise sense that is required. Has beats could have. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:02, 8 Augusti 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, then that would appear to be the same infusum as infusum, -i, a substantive made from infusus, -a, -um, the past participle of fundo, as in ipse omnem longo decedere circo / infusum populum et campos iubet esse patentis 'He himself bids all the streaming throng quit the long course and leave the field clear' (Aeneid 5:551–552, Loeb version), where 'streaming' is a traditional attempt to make 'poured out, spread out, extended, diffuse' clear & elegant in English. IacobusAmor 14:21, 8 Augusti 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the Aeneid quote it's not a noun but an adjective; but, yes, it's the same form. Just change streaming to steaming, and that's our cup of tea. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:28, 8 Augusti 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Past participle, as I pointed out; but yes, the pot is on! Twining's English Breakfast coming right up! (I'd prefer Twining's Keemun or Formosa Oolong, but they aren't available in supermarkets here.) IacobusAmor 15:17, 8 Augusti 2007 (UTC)[reply]

—For infusus (infusus), the same applies, and I think you probably already agree with me that one doesn't pour tea into one's ears or steep one's ears :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:32, 8 Augusti 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This also supports the infusum theory (see Infusum Scoparii - the infusion of Broom) which is definitely in the right context. --Harrissimo 18:20, 24 Iulii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it is, though I have never yet drunk an infusion of broom. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:32, 8 Augusti 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Exempla infusium"[fontem recensere]

"Infusium"? Si nomen est infusum secundae declinationis, phrasis recte est "Exempla infusorum"; si infusio tertiae declinationis, "Exempla infusionum"; si infusus quartae declinationis, "Exempla infusuum." Non? Unde hoc "infusium"? IacobusAmor 12:47, 8 Augusti 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bona quaestio :( Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:02, 8 Augusti 2007 (UTC)[reply]