E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Miscellanea[fontem recensere]

Neander, thanks for fixing the text, especially the typo luculent- for lutulent-! A couple of questions. ¶ For your solum, the original English is the technical term substrate, so why wouldn't the Latin substratum be better? ¶ You've changed examples of valve, -is (n.) to the classical valva, -ae (f.). The name of the taxonomic class Bivalvia (n. pl.) implies bivalve, -is (n.), which in turn might suggest valve, -is (n.)—a form that examples discoverable in scientific publications via Google attest. (Search for valvibus.) Whether the correct term in biology is valva, -ae or the attested valve, -is remains to be resolved. Maybe professional malacologists will make themselves known here and resolve this question. IacobusAmor 13:31, 29 Septembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think bivalvis (adj., n.pl. bivalvia) might stand to valva -ae as bilinguis (adj.) stands to lingua. But, I readily admit, I don't know. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:56, 29 Septembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know that substratum is here a technical term. To tell the truth, I believed that you had put an English learned word to its obvious Latin clothes, as it's so easy, for a learned Anglophone, to do. If solum will not be respected by Naturwissenschaftler in this context, it must of course be changed back. Though substratum would probably have denoted 'litter' or something like that for Cicero, I confess that I have myself, unclassically, used substratum as a philosophical term. ¶ As Andrew already explained, res cui binae valvae sunt is res bivalvis, etc. Valve is of course a shrewd back-formation for those who know their professional subject better than Latin derivational morphology. Neander 17:22, 29 Septembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]