Disputatio:Planetulus

Planeta is masculine. Diminutives normally keep the gender of their base word, so this word should definitely be m. But worse: diminutives normally have the usual 1st/2nd-declension gender endings, whatever the ending of their base word. So it is possible this should even be planetulus!! I'm pretty sure, in fact, that that's right, but I know no one's going to believe me until I find a parallel. That could take a while. >sigh< --Iustinus 06:32, 19 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

Diminutiva verborum masculinorum a-declinationis difficillima sunt inventu. Tamen (contra sententiam tuam supra dictam) unum exemplum repperi: Nomina duorum fluviorum, nempe Mosa, -ae, m et (diminutivum) Mosella, -ae, m (sed apud paucos etiam f). usor:Bohmhammel, 21.22, 13 Kal. Oct. 2006

I was thinking of scurrula -ae m., from scurra -ae m. --Diaphanus 01:16, 2 Decembris 2006 (UTC)

Excellent find, Diaphanus! --Iustinus 09:56, 5 Decembris 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems that not only did scurrula take the gender of its primitive, its -ula was used to match the declension of its primitive. The "Planetula (-ae, m.)" that's up on the main article now makes much more sense to me. --Diaphanus 23:14, 8 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Aliud vobis exemplum inveni: verna, -ae (m.) > vernula, -ae (m.) [iuxta vernaculus, -i] --Fabullus 14:54, 28 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

Ab altera parte: prunus, -i (f). > prunella, -ae (f). --Iustinus 09:29, 30 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

I think prunella was created according to the "-a Is The Feminine Diminutive Ending" notion, rather than the "Retaining the Common Nounal Termination" notion that is more demonstrable and more congruent with the "retains the gender of the primitive." --Diaphanus 142.166.245.145 10:14, 6 Decembris 2011 (UTC)

Ubi hanc, Iustine, invenisti? Mihi quidem hoc exemplum occurrit: ficus, -i (f) > ficula, -ae (f). Ergo, ut videtur, nomina masculina primae declinationis, cum diminuuntur, declinationem conservant. Nomina tamen feminina alterius declinationis, cum diminuuntur, primam capiunt. --Fabullus 12:11, 30 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

However, a) the quoted passage has ficulis, and neither ficula nor ficulus, and b) the gender and declension of ficus "were disputed even among the ancients". If we treat ficus as feminine, depending on the declension, we would expect either ficulus (fic-us f. → fic-ul-us f.) or ficicula (fic-us f. → fici-cul-a f.) It was apparently assumed that since ficus is often feminine, and -a was felt to be The Feminine Diminutive Ending (clearly not), it was then assumed that ficula should be the nominative singular form. --Diaphanus 142.166.245.145 09:58, 6 Decembris 2011 (UTC)

Ubi? Vide paginam quae est disputatio:prunus! --Iustinus 15:18, 30 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

It seems, to me anyway, that in the formation of diminutives from primitives of the first two declensions, two methods were employed in the treatment of the terminations: Definitive Gender Terminations (DGT), whereby each of the three terminations has a unchanging gender assignment (based on the "default" gender-termination assignment), and the common termination of the primitive is ignored, hence vernaculus, planetulus, ficula; Gender and Termination Retention (GTR), whereby both the common gender and termination are retained, hence scurrula, vernula, Mosella. Obviously, I favor GTR not only because they do what servulus, puellula, pratulum actually do (retain the common gender and the termination, even if by necessity), but also I find it silly that diminutives retain common genders, but not common terminations, specially when such primitives (e.g. planeta, prunus) go out of their way not to adhere to that "default" gender-termination assignment. I find it even sillier that first-declension diminutives would follow GTR, but second-declension ones would follow DGT. --Diaphanus 142.166.245.145 11:12, 6 Decembris 2011 (UTC)

Mirabile dictu. Gratias. Sed fortasse talia difficiliora sunt eo quod tam rare (non autem numquam) Romani verba Graeca suffixibus Latinis augebant. Fortasse melius esset Planetion, vel Planetiscus vel sim. Quid remini? --Iustinus 21:40, 19 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

Diminutives take the gender "of the primitive," and the diminutive suffix is -ulus (-a, -um) (A&G #243), so if planeta is masculine, the diminutive must be planetulus, as planetula would clearly (-ulus, -a, -um) be feminine, no? IacobusAmor 21:47, 19 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

No, indeed!

For those who do not fully understand the hesitation expressed because of the suggested planetulus form, this seems to be the reasoning:

When we are told that diminutives regularly take the gender of their primitives, what is actually being described is a procedure whereby the grammatical information of the primitive is imparted on the diminutive. As for the diminutive suffixes ending in us-a-um, while the us-a-um family of terminations has the masculine-feminine-neuter gender assigment by default, there is nothing that makes, e.g., -us the definitive "masculine" termination. In fact, unlike nouns of the last three declensions and many nouns of the first two declensions and adjectives, there are many words ending in that family of terminations that have genders not matching up with the default gender-termination assignment (e.g. scurra m., humus f., virus n.). Now, if the primitive imparts its word-specific grammatical information onto its diminutive, not only should that apply to the gender, but also to any word-specific gender-termination assignment whenever applicable. The primitive and diminutive have a common gender, and whenever possible, a common termination. This is seen plainly with "regular" words (admittedly by coincidence): equus m., equulus m.; equa f., equula f.; atrium n., atriolum n. This is the reasoning behind scurra m., scurrula m., and our word planeta m., planetula m., here.

In all of these cases, the grammatical nature of the diminutive terminations is regularly subordinate to, or congruent with, the grammatical nature of the primitive, not the other way around. Just as we do not randomly pick a gender for the diminutive because the us-a-um terminations have a default gender-termination assignment, we do not randomly pick a termination for it, either. The diminutive is trying to emulate its primitive as much as possible, picking up commonality wherever it can. We could just as easily think that the diminutives were created by sticking the diminutive-forming "bases" (-ul-, -ol-, etc.) between the bases of the primitives and the terminations: equus to equulus, equa to equula, atrium to atriolum, scurra to scurrula, planeta to planetula. What makes these all like each other is that the possible commonality of terminations is maintained, just as the commonality of gender is maintained.

But when it comes to planetulus, the grammatical nature of the primitive actually becomes subordinate to the grammatical nature of the diminutive terminations; the word-specific gender-termination assignment of scurra is ignored in favor of the default masculine-gender assignment of -ulus.

So, planetulus deviates from the usual procedure because its formation is an instance in which possible commonality of terminations is actually avoided, not maintained. --Diaphanus 156.34.216.49 12:32, 24 Decembris 2010 (UTC)

I had a similar but different reaction—the -ul- diminutive seemed too Latin for a word that seems so Greek. I was looking to see if *planetium or *πλανητιον (or whatever) existed, couldn't really find anything. —Myces Tiberinus 10:37, 20 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

Planetium (diminutivum Graecum exitu Latino scriptum) aut planetion ergo potius placere videtur, inveniri scilicet non possit quippe qui res quoque novissima sit. Planetiscus potius ut deus parvus sonat (sicut Paniscus). Moveamusne inde paginam ad planetium? An exspectemus alios fontes? usor:Bohmhammel, 20.09, a. d. 12 Kal. Oct. 2006

Quidam biologi habent classem animalium ex genere eorum, quae Anglice appellantur "weevils", quarum membra appellant auletulos. Eodem modo autem genus biologicum poetularum inveniri potest, quod for sit an iamdudum intellexeritis. Equidem sperabam apud Martialem vel Petronium poetam verbum "poetulum" invenire me posse, sed non successit.--Iovis Fulmen 20:55, 20 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

L&S continet "poetillam," sed sulum tamquam "verbum phasmaticum"—sphalma pro "post illum" --Iustinus 20:29, 16 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

Wait, we settled on second declension? It seemed to me that the weight of the evidence pointed to first declension. --Iustinus 08:23, 15 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

I fear I couldn't wait any longer [it was five years]: I wanted a category name. I don't mind a bit, but the argument above that the gender of a diminutive should match that of the parent form persuaded me. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:52, 15 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but whether the gender of a diminutive should match its primitive was not really the issue! The real issue had to do with the termination. Planetulus was called into question because nounal terminations do not exactly work like adjectival terminations, and while there is a strong link between gender and -us/-a/-um for the latter, there is not such a strong link for the former. Nounal terminations can be linked to different genders, and diminutives regularly have -us/-a/-um terminations in common with their primitives. It was this -- not the existence of scurrula and vernula -- that convinced me of the legitimacy of planetula. The fact that scurrula and vernula actually exist has always been, to me at least, the icing on the cake. --Diaphanus 142.166.245.145 23:02, 5 Decembris 2011 (UTC)

That was my initial view, but the classical examples of scurrula and vernula, cited above, persuaded me. Actually I thought that as of the 2006 discussion we were pretty much decided, with the reservation that the Latin diminutive on a Greek word was odd at best. --Iustinus 09:58, 15 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

I always found the "too Greek" idea pretty weak. It has the Latinifying -a termination (instead of the transliterated -es), and it already has been associated with a Latin suffix (as in planetarius). --Diaphanus 142.166.245.145 09:58, 6 Decembris 2011 (UTC)

I may be misreading that discussion, but I can't see much approach to a decision in it; and planetula m., which is proposed above, seems a scarcely-forgivable hybrid to me. But, anyway, if there really is a decision up there, by all means change to it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:38, 15 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

The fact that it is a hybrid is orthogonal to this discussion—planetulus is no less of a hybrid. The issue is that parallel examples can be cited of 1st declension masculines with diminutives that are also 1st declension masculines. --Iustinus 16:36, 15 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

Well, no, don't move now, because a real citation may render that argument otiose. There are three occurrences of "planetulus" here: (p. 285 apud Google Books). "Curiosiora" in the title is nice too: wonder if Lewis Carroll knew this book? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:27, 15 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's hard to argue with that. --Iustinus 16:36, 15 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

I am going to dispute it once more, but this time with feeling. My response can be found at Responsum. Attestations and grammatical reasoning (not "our own grammatical reasoning") are there. --Diaphanus 142.166.245.145 142.166.245.145 06:10, 12 Februarii 2012 (UTC)

But I'll argue with it anyway: Sure, we can come up with such occurrences, but when we consider Classical precedent (scurrula, vernula), and the reasoning behind that Classical precedent (serv-us m. → serv-ul-us m.; puell-a f. → puell-ul-a f.; prat-um n. → prat-ul-um n.; scurr-a m. → scurr-ul-a m.; vern-a m. → vern-ul-a m.), this planetulus (planet-a m. → planet-ul-us (!!!) m.) turns out to be irregularly formed. --Diaphanus 142.166.245.145 22:41, 5 Decembris 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but if there is existing authoritative usage our rule is to go with it. We don't privilege our own grammatical reasoning over "reliable sources".

I have found "planetulus" in use: a reasonable scientific author, but only one author. If your reasoning is valid, it seems likely that some other early-modern Latinist would have followed that same line of reasoning and published the word "planetula". Find one (or better still two), and we have good reason to make the change. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:06, 6 Decembris 2011 (UTC)

Great, but I am more interested in grammatical reasoning rather than "our own grammatical reasoning." --Diaphanus. 142.166.245.145 142.166.245.145 06:10, 12 Februarii 2012 (UTC)

Diaphani argumenta

Diaphanus' latest response to this discussion seems to have gone largely unnoticed, perhaps because his arguments are 'hidden' somewhere else on the internet (Responsum). I must say I find his arguments very convincing: not only does he provide a number of examples of 'planatula' by several distinguished authors, but he also demonstrates that in ancient Latin - as far as can be inferred from the few available examples - first declension nouns in '-a' as well as second declension nouns in '-us' tend to preserve their declension in diminutive. (By the way, I don't think Mosa > Mosella and Scaeva > Scaevola are valid examples. Although 'Mosella' sounds like a diminutive of 'Mosa', it is most probably a latinized form of a local Celtic name, which may or may not be related to 'Mosa', and the diminutive 'Scaevola' (from 'manus scaevola' f.) is only masculine when used as a cognomen. But this does not invalidate Diaphanus' arguments). I therefore propose that 'Planetulus' be moved to 'Planetula'. --Fabullus (disputatio) 08:01, 15 Augusti 2012 (UTC)

That's great. I wish he had troubled to say here that he had found some citations, because this is where he was asked for them! But now that you have read his answer, and now that there is not only a good grammatical argument but also citations overweighing the one "planetulus" that I found long ago, I agree with the move. A happy ending, in fact. Let's do it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:09, 15 Augusti 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see now that he did say it: "Attestations ... are to be found there". I missed that word, probably because I was distracted by the immediately following threat (or generous offer) of more "grammatical reasoning". Because of that perceived threat, I never followed the link, so I never saw the attestations. Mea culpa. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:24, 15 Augusti 2012 (UTC)

I left a message on Diaphanus's journal. I have asked UVbot to change the category name, a mildly superhuman task which I'm sure will be carried out soon. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:40, 16 Augusti 2012 (UTC)

'Nanoplaneta' vs. 'Planetula'

Types of Solar System bodies.

The official term defined by the IAU (International Astronomical Union) is "Dwarf planet", therefore it should be translated this way. "Nanus" means dwarf in latin and is the perfect term for a translation, and we also have to differentiate between "dwarf planet" and "minor planet", the term "planetula" prohibits this. So I am in favor to use "nanoplaneta" instead of "planetula". --Zinoural (disputatio) 23:10, 26 Martii 2014 (UTC)

After many years

I was starting to create a page from scratch, not knowing that a page existed already, and I was automatically going to use the masculine planetulus for it. Then I came across this discussion and now I must say that I have no answers concerning what the correct gender should be. Both genders are attested in literature. Personally I prefer planetulus, but I am not too much biased against planetula. In any case, I had still created a page from scratch, so I am going to integrate it. Please feel free to harmonize the gender as you find opportune. --Grufo (disputatio) 15:18, 29 Martii 2023 (UTC)

Update: I have found several old sources that use planetulus (see page). In my opinion the page should be renamed accordingly. --Grufo (disputatio) 15:50, 29 Martii 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I foresaw the possibility of this change far above and long ago! I have no objection.

We ought in any case to have put a redirect at "planetulus", which would have saved you trouble. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:16, 29 Martii 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I will proceed accordingly then. There has been already a long discussion on this topic and I believe that most editors will agree with the renaming after very reputable sources have been added to the page. I believe planetula can remain as an alternative, because it has been used in the nineteenth century. --Grufo (disputatio) 16:22, 29 Martii 2023 (UTC)

I might have a mess with the renaming, and so the history remained on the redirected page. I apologize for the mistake. I hope someone will be able to fix it. --Grufo (disputatio) 16:30, 29 Martii 2023 (UTC)

Update: There are now eight_--Grufo nine sources in favour of planetulus, but I am still not 100% sure that it is the right choice, because occurrences of planetula among astronomers (especially after the 17th century) do exist, and Diaphanus' arguments (see above) have some weight. In my opinion these arguments are not strong enough to demonstrate a general rule though, nor do they mandate that the diminutive of planeta must be planetula. --Grufo (disputatio) 18:42, 29 Martii 2023 (UTC)

I never replied to Diaphanus's slightly tetchy last comment, above, but if I had replied I would have said that all humans who have begun to learn to speak use grammatical reasoning to expand their range: language variation and language change are sufficient evidence that they don't all reach the same results :) With rules and analogies one can argue for "planetula" or "planetulus": but as for us encyclopedists, we can have more than one lemma but we must have only one pagename, we must use reliable sources, we must avoid (oxalá!) original research, and we must try not to startle the horses. Planetula to be taken as masculine, in my view, startles the horses: so I would give due weight to the rule about the gender of diminutives, I would remember that "planeta" is a Greek loanword but "-ulus -a -um" is a native Latin suffix, and I would go with "planetulus". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:11, 28 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)