Disputatio:Potio refrigeratoria

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Nomen[fontem recensere]

Si haec pagina ad Anglicam "soft drink" correspondet, cur "refrigeratoria"? Tales potiones interdum refrigeratae sumuntur, sed non semper. An coffea gelata est "potio refrigeratoria" necne? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:49, 25 Novembris 2012 (UTC)

Potio refrigeratori nobis manifeste 'cooling drink' significat. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:20, 25 Novembris 2012 (UTC)
Ah! Male intellegi, et recte mones. Et quid dicis de coffea gelata, amice ...? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:41, 25 Novembris 2012 (UTC)
Nihil dicimus, quia coffeam gelatam bibere non solemus. ;) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:32, 25 Novembris 2012 (UTC)
Ut credo, Lexicon Vilborgianum potionem refrigeratoriam praebet, quod apud Pelagonium (Vet. 28.380) legitur — Pelagonius quidem de equorum potionibus loquitur :-) — et quod verbum refrigerandi per metonymiam etiam idem significat ac verbum recreandi (cf. Cic. Sen. 16.57). Sed recreandi sensus secundarius est. Itaque puto refrigeratoriam nimia ambiguitate premi. Apud Gregorium Pitkäranta (Lexicon Finnico-Latino-Finnicum. Helsinki: WSOY, 2001) potio recreatrix legitur, quod vocabulum praefero. Neander (disputatio) 14:18, 25 Novembris 2012 (UTC)
These worthies appear to be missing the point: with few exceptions, the sine qua non of a soft drink, as the term is used today, is carbonii dioxidum. More broadly (so as to include among soft drinks, say, noncarbonated lemonade), the governing distinction is the metaphor of "soft" (not containing alcohol) against "hard" (containing alcohol). If potio refrigeratoria is allowed for 'soft drink', then something like potio calefactoria must be the term for 'alcoholic drink'—which might be OK, as long as attestations show that the Romans imputed calefaction to beer & wine. ¶ As for potio recreatrix: if that's to mean 'soft drink', then it must EXCLUDE beer & wine, which by nobody's definition are soft drinks. ¶ For drinks featuring carbonation, what's wrong with potio carbonata ? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:42, 25 Novembris 2012 (UTC)
Angli theam calidam potionem refrig[er]atoriam esse censent.
Romani antiqui et saccharum et vinum valde calefactoria esse censuerunt (quidam nutritione periti hodierni consentiunt!). Potionem refrigeratoriam solam quam recognoverunt fuit ... aqua.
Ita, mi Iacobe, "Potio carbonata". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:05, 25 Novembris 2012 (UTC)
De "potio refrigeratoria"; videtur mihi esse versionem formae Hispanicae, quae est refresco.--Xaverius 18:41, 25 Novembris 2012 (UTC)
Maybe we're being a bit too scientific here. Various cultures / languages conceptualise the "potional" reality in different terms. These are folk-taxonomies, and there's not much point in applying Aristotelian definitions to them. To wit, if En. soft drink is supposed to capture drinks not containing alcohol, it must include non-alcoholic beer and wine. Maybe it does? But that's not very important. Different languages appear to apply various chemical criteria of classification: [+carbonated] (Danish, French, etc.) or [-alcoholic] (Lithuanian, Russian, English, &c). Not a few languages apply the (folk-)physiological criterion [+recreative] (Estonian, Finnish, German, Hungarian, Swedish, &c ), and so it won't do just to brush aside potio refrigeratoria or potio recreatrix on account of the fact that they fail to satisfy some chemical criterion. Or are you suggesting that German Erfrischungsgetränk is a misnomer. too? None of those words in different languages captures the reality in toto, but all of them do capture some aspects of it, and that's good enough. The best thing to do, for now, it to keep the title as it is. Potio refrigeratoria is attested in a source extra Vicipaediam and backed by cross-linguistic evidence. Neander (disputatio) 23:16, 25 Novembris 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I'm convinced that an article can be written about "potiones refrig[er]atoriae". Because of the different views on this set of drinks in different cultures, I'm still doubtful that a category can usefully be maintained for them (and because of that doubt, I specifically queried water, iced coffee and hot tea, all widely considered to belong in such a set).
"Widely"? What? You like your espresso carbonated? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:28, 26 Novembris 2012 (UTC)
I don't drink it iced either :) I was talking here about "potiones refrigeratoriae". Certainly we can define and categorize "Potiones carbonatae", as I agreed above. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:46, 26 Novembris 2012 (UTC)
Well, anyway, that is an issue for Disputatio Categoriae:Potiones refrigeratoriae. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:30, 26 Novembris 2012 (UTC)
Walk into any ordinary restaurant in the Western Hemisphere (and westward into the Pacific) and ask for a soft drink, and you'll typically not be offered water, coffee (iced or otherwise), tea, or fruit juice. You'll be understood to be asking for a flavored carbonated nonalcoholic liquid. Anything more§ will require something of a stretch. The cited dictionary is apparently being influenced by peculiarly broad European notions, as seen in de:Erfrischungsgetränk, nl:Frisdrank, and pt:Refrigerante. In contrast, the notion that prevails more widely is seen in ast:Gasiosa, da:Sodavand, el:Σόδα (ποτό), es:Gaseosa, and eu:Gaseosa. (And what's with it:Soft drink?) Bear in mind that English synonyms—yes, synonyms!—for soft drink, as listed in the English Wikipedia, include soda, pop, soda pop, fizzy drink, seltzer water, mineral water, sparkling water and carbonated beverage. The Spanish definition gets it about right: a soft drink is "una bebida saborizada, efervescente (carbonatada) y sin alcohol." At the least, the adverb deployed in Vicipaedia's saepe carbonatus, is way too week for what, in most usage, is semper. The adverbs in the English definition ("often, but not always") must be accommodating a small minority of variants out on the fringes of what the concept has come to be (see Kool-Aid below). The core properties remain: (1) flavored, (2) carbonated, (3) nonalcoholic. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:28, 26 Novembris 2012 (UTC)
§For example, Kool-Aid markets itself as a soft drink, and it was so declared by a governor of Nebraska, but Wikipedia defines it as "a brand of flavored drink mix." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:28, 26 Novembris 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, the semantic extension of Swedish läskedryck 'potio refrigeratoria' and Finnish virvoitusjuoma 'potio recreatrix' is exactly conterminous with "una bebida saborizada, efervescente (carbonatada) y sin alcohol." Water, coffee (iced or otherwise), tea, or fruit juice (I'm borrowing from Iacobus) don't belong. Neander (disputatio) 16:17, 26 Novembris 2012 (UTC)

Exempla quotidiana[fontem recensere]

Soft drink shelf 2.jpg

The only illustration of "soft drink" in the Arabic, Cossack, Japanese, Korean, Russian, and Thai wikipedias appears at right ("Soft drink shelf 2.jpg"). The same image serves as an additional one in a few other wikis; in the English one, its caption is "Soft drinks displayed on supermarket shelves." All the products illustrated in the photo are (1) flavored (2) carbonated (3) nonalcoholic drinks. An image of similar items is the only illustration in the Chinese wiki. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:00, 26 Novembris 2012 (UTC)

Several wikis use as their first or only image a photo of a glass of a (1) cola-flavored (2) carbonated (3) nonalcoholic liquid. For further gustatory delight, the example in the Tagalog wiki adds ice cubes and slices of lemon. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:07, 26 Novembris 2012 (UTC)

Mineral water[fontem recensere]

Mineral water is a fuzzy case: it's unflavored, but its fizziness may prove persuasive to some, as it seemingly does to the writers of the Greek wikipedia, who deploy it as the only illustration in their article on soft drinks—but then again, mineral water is often served with a slice of citrus, thus in effect becoming flavored and thereby meeting all three criteria observed above. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:22, 26 Novembris 2012 (UTC)