Disputatio:Procavia
"Procavia est genus hyracoidearum familiae."[fontem recensere]
'Procavia is a genus of the family of hyracoids'. However: ¶ According to the "article" itself, the hyracoidea constitute an order, not a family. ¶ Since the hyracoidea are plural (one hyracoideum, two hyracoidea), their correct genitive plural is hyracoideorum. IacobusAmor 10:38, 27 Iunii 2009 (UTC)
- Unless -oidea is continuing the Greek adjective declension, in which case it'd be hyracoidum or possibly hyracoideum (cf. Declinatio Latina nominum Graecorum, though Fabullus disagrees with the idea on the talk page, sine ratione data). Do we know whether -oidea ← -oideus or ← -οιδέα is the actual representative of the quality of bioLatin? —Mucius Tever 02:55, 1 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
- The names of all ranks above genus are plural. ¶ For the plants, Stearns's Botanical Latin (3rd ed., pp. 102–103) shows that these names can be regarded as adjectives in agreement with an understood plantae, or (in the usual manner) as nouns, feminine plurals in their own right. They take Latin, not Greek, forms. (This is apparently spelled out in the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature.) One might assume that the terms for the ranks of animals would follow the same plan: as adjectives in agreement with animalia, or as nouns, neuter plurals in their own right. ¶ For -oide- in particular: Stearns discusses -oideae (feminine, for plants, of course, not animals), and says they follow the paradigm of what he calls Group A adjectives (e.g. longus, acutus, albus, etc). ¶ Ergo, it would seem that this article should begin something like: "Procavia est genus ordinis Hyracoideorum." ¶ This article is one of a series of texts that display false grammar and confuse the terms for the ranks, one hopes not deliberately. IacobusAmor 03:42, 1 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
- I know about the plurals — -oidea wasn't offered as a singular; for both -oides and -oideus it is a neuter plural. Point taken about -oideae attesting -oideus, though (I do see it given in the ICBN, but nothing about it being on principle of preferring Latinized forms; use of a form of -oideus just seems to have been prior practice). ICZN doesn't go into any detail about the nom.sg., just saying that "the suffix -OIDEA is used for a superfamily name"—but I suppose if it's supposed to correlate to bot. -oideae it's more likely it's a form of -oideus as well. —Mucius Tever 17:49, 3 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
- The names of all ranks above genus are plural. ¶ For the plants, Stearns's Botanical Latin (3rd ed., pp. 102–103) shows that these names can be regarded as adjectives in agreement with an understood plantae, or (in the usual manner) as nouns, feminine plurals in their own right. They take Latin, not Greek, forms. (This is apparently spelled out in the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature.) One might assume that the terms for the ranks of animals would follow the same plan: as adjectives in agreement with animalia, or as nouns, neuter plurals in their own right. ¶ For -oide- in particular: Stearns discusses -oideae (feminine, for plants, of course, not animals), and says they follow the paradigm of what he calls Group A adjectives (e.g. longus, acutus, albus, etc). ¶ Ergo, it would seem that this article should begin something like: "Procavia est genus ordinis Hyracoideorum." ¶ This article is one of a series of texts that display false grammar and confuse the terms for the ranks, one hopes not deliberately. IacobusAmor 03:42, 1 Iulii 2009 (UTC)