Disputatio:Propulsorium

propulsrum[fontem recensere]

Seems to be correctly spelled. Maybe ~~Taupman~~Traupman(dictionary author) made a mistake(?). hmm. It is good that you Donatello investigate this and please feel free to continue to do so. Jondel (disputatio) 09:25, 30 Augusti 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Propulsrum" is definitely unacceptable. "Propulstrum" would be a bit better but not needed, because propulsorium is well-attested. Neander (disputatio) 10:16, 30 Augusti 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's move it then, let me leave a note though. Jondel (disputatio) 12:08, 30 Augusti 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But why? "Propulsrum" is a clear case of (probably unintended) misinformation. The sequence lsr is phonotactically ungrammatical in Latin ("propulsrum" would be the only example). The move was good, though. Neander (disputatio) 19:30, 30 Augusti 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So Traupman probably made a mistake. No mention at all of Traupman? Anyway, I have to leave the internet cafe now. Bye.Jondel (disputatio) 20:20, 30 Augusti 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, that form can't be right. If we were sure what form he intended, we could cite him for it -- but I, for one, can't feel sure what form he intended. It's lost, somewhere between him, his proof-reading and his printer. If we put that form in, we'd just be saying "Look, everybody! There's some kind of mistake in Traupman's book here!" Which wouldn't help anybody ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:54, 30 Augusti 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Got it! Thanks as always.Jondel (disputatio) 09:52, 31 Augusti 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno about the 3rd edition that was cited, but Traupman has propulsor for English "propeller" in my 2nd edition. —Mucius Tever (disputatio) 01:13, 7 Septembris 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is great that you mentioned this Myces! Now allow me to add a source from Traupman's ~~2nd~~3rd edition dicitonary.Jondel (disputatio) 01:14, 10 Septembris 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, propulsor is a good agent noun, and **propulsrum (if really mentioned in Traupman³) might have been a feeble attempt to get along with the fact that Latin tends to restrict the use of agent nouns in -tor / -sor to denote animate agents. That's why we have computatrum instead of computator, extractorium 'corkscrew' (Morgan) instead of (the theoretically possible) extractor 'one who draws sthing out', etc. Yet, admittedly, this is only a tendency, though not without some strength in it. Neander (disputatio) 07:45, 10 Septembris 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propulsorum?[fontem recensere]

Now, the latest Traupman reading appears to be propulsorum. A derivation like this, along with the former propulsrum, is highly dubious. I don't possess Traupman's dictionay, nor does our library, I regret to say. Please, could someone blessed with Traupman's dictionary confirm this unexpected reading? Thanks, Neander (disputatio) 06:32, 21 Decembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uh Traupman probably meant propulsorium , the rota coclearis somehow disappeared which I will fix. I couldnt find a google books version.--Jondel (disputatio) 12:01, 21 Decembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rota coclearis = 'a spoony wheel'? 'a snaily wheel'? Vide infra. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:13, 21 Decembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rather, shell like wheel.--Jondel (disputatio) 18:31, 21 Decembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The current citation was of "propulsrum" and "Trapuman". Dunno who he is :)

We agreed, above, that it is improper and unfair to Traupman to cite him for what is certainly a mistake. Poor old Traupman should not be dragged through the mud like this -- everybody makes mistakes occasionally. As Myces reports that Traupman's 2nd ed. has "propulsor" I am changing the citation to that form and to the 2nd ed. OK? Since, as Neander says, even "propulsor" is hardly ideal as a term for an inanimate subject, I left "propulsor" in the footnote and did not promote it to the text: we have two possible terms there already.

Given Myces' information, my guess would be that Traupman wanted to make a change in his 3rd ed. -- because he had the same feeling as Neander, that -or should represent an animate agent -- but his proof-reading note didn't make it clear to the printer what the change should be. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:40, 21 Decembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Edit-conflict: written before the preceding.] To answer Neander's question: In the English–Latin section, on p. 628 of my dead-tree copy of the third edition (2007), it's propulsr•um (the dot marks the stem). The Latin–English section doesn't have it. Presumably an error? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:05, 21 Decembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Andrew. (To Iacobus)It's an error. the propulsrum is not and should not be found.--Jondel (disputatio) 18:31, 21 Decembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coc(h)learis?[fontem recensere]

What's this about an adjective coc(h)learis apparently meaning 'spiral'? Traupman's Latin–English section doesn't have the word, and for 'spiral' (adj.), his English–Latin section gives spiralis. Cassell's doesn't have the word; it offers coclea 'spiral' for the noun, but tortuosus 'spiral' for the adjective. White's dictionary doesn't have coclearis at all, and likewise (apparently) Lewis & Short. Ainsworth's dictionary does have the adjective, but only in the sense of 'of, or pertaining to, a spoon'; for 'spiral', it has 'ad spiram pertinens' and 'in spiram convolutus', with 'turbinated (spiral)' = turbinatus. (For 'a spiral line', it offers linea in spiram ducta.) So is the adjective coclearis 'spiral' (adj.) a Classical Latin word at all? It appears to have been popularized recently by collator K9re11, whose page admits "Hic usor nullo pacto aut aegre Latinitate contribuere potest." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:05, 21 Decembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote 1 attributes rota cochlearis to "Ebbe Vilborg, Norstedts svensk-latinska ordbok, ed. 2a; et Tuomo Pekkanen & Reijo Pitkäranta, Lexicon hodiernae Latinitatis Finno-Latino-Finnicum (Societas Litterarum Finnicarum Helsingiae, 2006[)]." Given that Latin already had an adjective for 'spiral', they wouldn't have needed to invent a new one, would they? So what's their source of cochlearis (adj.)? Or is it supposed to be meaning something other than 'spiral'? Surely not 'spoony', or even 'snaily'! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:33, 21 Decembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the English adjective 'spiral', the third edition of Stearn's Botanical Latin has only spiralis ; for the Latin adjectives cochlearis and cochleariformis, it has only 'concave like a spoon, spoon-like, cochlear in aestivation'. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:51, 21 Decembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

coclearis,I think, alludes more to the shape of the spiral shell (yes,'snaily'). The spoon shape is like a shell.--Jondel (disputatio) 18:38, 21 Decembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The origin is Greek:1530-40; < Latin < Greek kochlíās snail (with spiral shell), screw, probably akin to kónchē conch.--Jondel (disputatio) 18:47, 21 Decembris 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, I think the link here is definitely the meaning "screw". See the Lewis and Short definntions: I. a snail; II. A. A snail-shell; B. A screw of a press; C. A machine for drawing water, a water-snail, waterscrew; D. A door that moves easily. In English, ship propellers are often called screws, and in Russian (винт) and probably other languages the same word is used. This suggests plain coclea might be used for "propeller", but another source would be needed. As for rota cochlearis, we could interpret it as a "screw-like wheel", which sort of makes sense. Lesgles (disputatio) 19:31, 21 Decembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The English wiki highlights the idea of screwing only in connection with marine propellers, in its first paragraph saying: "A marine propeller is sometimes colloquially known as a screw propeller or screw." It does, however, feature airscrew as an alternative to propeller in the article Propeller (aeronautics); but note that the qualifier air- seems necessary there. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:21, 21 Decembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only Vilborg offers rota cochlearis. Neander (disputatio) 20:46, 21 Decembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote 1 says both Vilborg and Pekkanen & Pitkäranta do. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:08, 21 Decembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've put that right (I hope). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:44, 21 Decembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here, cochlearis is supposed to be an obvious derivative of cochlea, as Jondel and Lesgles suggest (cf. also the phrase in cocleam 'spirally'). Also in Estonian, 'propeller' is "boat screw". But rota cochlearis, as attested in Geronimo Cardano's De rerum varietate, p. 481, does not suggest the idea of propeller (but rather that of rota dentata). I'm sure we'll get along with the single word propulsorium. Neander (disputatio) 20:46, 21 Decembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also running counter to any idea of a screw is Cassell's's advice for writers translating English 'screw': "render by clavus (= nail)." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:08, 21 Decembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This may be the same kind of advice as "render 'bullet' by 'arrow'", which is right for poetic but not scientific contexts. The "screw" name in the European languages seems to refer to the historical development of the propeller rather than its current shape. But I do like propulsorium myself, the only reason perhaps to include rota coclearis is if it's used a lot in contemporary Latin because of that dictionary entry. I agree that there seems to be no justification for using coclearis for "spiral" in general. Lesgles (disputatio) 15:29, 22 Decembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the idea of a propeller (which the English wiki defines as a kind of fan, not a kind of screw), the romance languages and Esperanto send us back to Greco-Latin helix, -icis. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:08, 21 Decembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I invited Usor:K9re11, mentioned above, to comment. My impression is that "spiralis", though used in scientific Latin, is not ancient, so it's reasonable to consider alternatives. On the other hand, what reason there may be to prefer "coclearis", which as an adjective is not ancient either, I don't know. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:35, 21 Decembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought "spiralis" to be the correct word until I saw "coclearis" at the page Ordo Hubble. Now this has been changed to "spiralis" by IacobusAmor, and it might well be that this is the correct word. K9re11 (disputatio) 08:07, 22 Decembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see! That explains it. Well, as for me, when I was editing the pages Via lactea and Galaxias recently, I checked the online dictionary of modern Latin that was linked at Ephemeris. It gave me "spiralis" in an astronomical context, and I accepted it happily. I think it was the same dictionary that is now here. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:47, 22 Decembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]