Disputatio:Momentum virium

Quam Latina (et nec Romanica) non verba utilis dat, mutuari debeo ab Anglica 'torque'. Pantocrator 02:48, 19 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verbum Anglicum e lingua Francogallica mutuatur, verbum Francogallicum e Latina torques seu torquis; sed hoc verbum Latinum collarium significat, minime virem physicam.

Possum "vis torcularia" seu "vis torquendi" suggerere; sed de rebus physicis perpauca scio! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:16, 19 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Encyclopaedia sumus; debes non fingere. Eh. Estne Latine 'momentum virium' seu 'momentum virium respectu axis'?. —Mucius Tever 15:27, 20 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mihi certe est 'momentum virium'. Praeter Francogallica adeo, "Moment de Force" est. Quoniam sit verba 'momentum virium' , nobis non opus est "Torquum" ita, ad istum 'momentum virium' iam mutemus ?--Jondel 02:12, 21 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admoneo ego, autem, est melior habere unum verbum pro concepto. Momentum virium paene debet ut non ambiguitatem habeat. Pantocrator 02:41, 21 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Err,ok. So it seems we like have a consensus. Why don't we move it? (Why hasn't anyone move it ? ?:P Do we we need to gather more momentum? )--Jondel 00:05, 22 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the pure Latin single-word equivalent to torquum would be tortio (often spelled torsio), which however seems never to have been used in physics. In classical times it meant, I believe, excruciating pain, and was used in medicine for some particular conditions (which may also have differentiated the two spellings). Pantocrator 00:21, 22 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<shudder> I'm so glad We're out of those dark ages. Galileo was excommunicated for saying the world was round. continuation below.--Jondel 01:25, 22 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tortus, -ūs might be more neutral. But the one-word solution that you're suggesting is no must. Many wikis have two or more words. Unless tortus, then I'd suggest momentum torquendi or vis torquendi or vis torquens (too bad that Latin vis lacks gen.sg. and dat.sg. -- maybe we could use torquens, -ntis as a feminine substantive [= (vis) torquens]). --Neander 00:55, 22 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tortus seems like it should mean the act of turning, paralleling motus, rather than the measurement of it. Although motus can of course mean '(linear) momentum', the parallel to that is angular momentum rather than its derivative. I couldn't say.

Also, vis is not truly defective - the gen. and dat. are vis (uncertain vowel quantity) and vi. The forms did occur in classical times, as given by OLD and A&G, and I do remember reading that they were used freely in medieval and later Latin, and I believe I have found an example of each in the Principia. Pantocrator 01:39, 22 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About Torquum could we move it to 'momentum virium' which majority seems to agree on? Tortio and torquendi might be more apt for 'Twist' . (I'm surprised UV or some other magister did't make the 'movere'). Isn't 'virium' ok as a genitive for vis ? Are speaking in terms of 'strict' latin? Also as (you Pantocrato) mentioned, 'unum verbum pro concepto'. We can also insert 'anglice/moderna torquum /vel vis torquendi or vis torquens ' whatever. Besides in modern French torque is "Moment de Force" as per interwiki despite the fact that the English word Torque is derived from the French. --Jondel 01:25, 22 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, the word 'torque' is not derived from French. The late date (1884) would explain why there is no Latin form. Pantocrator 01:39, 22 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, interesting. The physical sense of torque is apparently too recent to be dealt with by my usual source, the Oxford dictionary of English etymology; etymonline.com gives it a different etymology from the archaeological sense. Doesn't really change anything for us, though. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:35, 22 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are independent words. Pantocrator 23:36, 22 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it actually takes magistratus to move a page. But I'll do it; better to have the page under an attested form instead of an invention, at least till someone can find (i.e. not create) something that more people can agree on. —Mucius Tever 03:41, 22 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Euler[fontem recensere]

To find a source for momentum virium, I looked at Euler's Theoria motus corporum solidorum, the fundamental work on rotational motion. He does indeed use that phrase, though it is not a fixed phrase to him but literally 'moment of forces'. He also uses the singular momentum vis to mean the torque generated by a single force. Would the singular not make more sense as a lemma form? Pantocrator 23:36, 22 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has been "moment of the forces" frequently in English as well, but just because it's a literal description, what's the indication that it's not a set phrase? Were there other, synonymous expressions he used? —Mucius Tever 12:19, 24 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]