Disputatio:Lex Hookiana
Nomen[fontem recensere]
I don't find any sources for "Lex Hooke" or "lex Hookeana". One possible Latin pagename is the law itself, "Ut tensio sic vis". That occurs on Google quite commonly. A second possibility might be "elasticitas Hookeana": I find versions of that phrase in several other languages, suggesting that a really clever search might find it in Latin too :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:54, 4 Februarii 2019 (UTC)
- Certainly the adjective Hookianus, -a, um is well-attested, starting from the year 1703 at the latest and including 1744, and the latter item on page 815 gives us Hooke's surname: Hookius, while zillions of other sources, including this one from 1691, give us his full name, Robertus Hookius. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:47, 4 Februarii 2019 (UTC)
- And since we know that Hooke in his own time was credited with the experimentum Hookianum (on respiration), and then or immediate after with the hypothesis Hookiana (on geology), we know that the syntax of lex Hookiana would have been instantly familiar to him and his readers, so I'd suggest that we give the lemma thus: "Lex Hookiana{{Convertimus}}." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:25, 4 Februarii 2019 (UTC)
- You make a good case (if I may say so). And all other Wikis seem to call the equivalent page by an equivalent name. No objection, then! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:16, 4 Februarii 2019 (UTC)
- And since we know that Hooke in his own time was credited with the experimentum Hookianum (on respiration), and then or immediate after with the hypothesis Hookiana (on geology), we know that the syntax of lex Hookiana would have been instantly familiar to him and his readers, so I'd suggest that we give the lemma thus: "Lex Hookiana{{Convertimus}}." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:25, 4 Februarii 2019 (UTC)