Disputatio:Pulsar enormium radiorum Roentgenianorum

De nomine Latino[fontem recensere]

I wasn't sure what to choose between the poetic Greek accusative (i.e. anomalon Roentgenianos radios pulsar) or the more native ablative of quality (i.e. anomalis Roentgenianis radiis pulsar), and given the intellectual topic I felt that the Greek way would work well. But the genetive of quality? Are we sure it fits with the adjectives chosen (anomalos/enormis)? I don't have the answer yet. But see Allen and Greenough, Latin Grammar § Genitive of Quality: “In classic prose, however, the genitive of quality is much less common than the ablative; it is practically confined to expressions of measure or number, to a phrase with êius and to nouns modified by māgnus, maximus, summus, or tantus. In general the genitive is used rather of essential, the ablative of special or incidental characteristics.” --Grufo (disputatio) 18:22, 27 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No need to reach into Greek when, according to Traupman, Latin has enormis for English 'anomalous'. Perhaps the aptest English synonym of 'anomalous' is 'irregular', for which, beyond enormis ('shapeless'), according to Cassells, Latin has incompositus ('rough'), inaequabilis, inaequalis ('not uniform'), and anomalus (but only as a technical term in grammar). ¶ The phrase 'anomalous X-ray pulsar' is itself ambiguous, as it could refer to an anomalous pulsar of X-rays or to a pulsar of anomalous X-rays. To this native speaker, the latter sounds likelier, structurally analogous with 'spotted pig wallow', a wallow for spotted pigs, not a spotted wallow for pigs. 'X-ray' here in English is an objective noun. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:33, 27 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the declension case that we use more than the actual adjective chosen (i.e. gen. “pulsar enormium radiorum X”? or instead abl. “pulsar enormibus radiis X”? or instead acc. Gr. “pulsar radios X enorme”?). As for the actual adjective chosen, I had kept anomalos only to make the “AXP” acronym recognizable. --Grufo (disputatio) 21:53, 27 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accusativus Graecus in a scientific term is completely unthinkable. The rest is not excluded, in my opinion gen. qualitatis most understandable. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 22:13, 27 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have renamed the page. In case in the future we find a better name we can always come back here. --Grufo (disputatio) 00:53, 28 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)[reply]