Disputatio:Satureja

Miscellanea[fontem recensere]

Neander. thanks for correcting those things, many of which date from years ago. A couple of points, however.

1. "floridarum plantarum genus": Stearn's Botanical Latin says the ordinary botanical word for English 'flowering' is the participle florens, and the adjective floridus has the particular botanical sense, not of 'flowering', but of 'abounding in flowers, profusely flowering'. (And so the new wording would be incorrect.) If you search the web for "planta florens," numerous nonwiki examples of its botanical use turn up, including at least one by Stearn himself, in an article in an academic journal.

2. "ad Lamiacearum familiam pertinens." This relationship seems to be handled variously. One way is to use a plain genitive:

German: "Pfeffer (Piper) ist eine Gattung der Familie der Pfeffergewächse (Piperaceae)."

Another is to use the preposition de to indicate a genitivelike relationship:

French: "Piper est un genre botanique de la famille des Piperaceae."

Spanish: "Piper es un género . . . de la familia Piperaceae."

A wordier way, seen in Vicipaedia's current version and sometimes seen in the Spanish wiki,

uses the preposition a(d) with pertinente(s).

The English wiki ordinarily uses the preposition in:

"Piper, the pepper plants or pepper vines . . . , are . . . [a] genus in the family Piperaceae."

"Clinostigma is a genus of flowering plant in the Arecaceae family."

"Curcuma . . . is a genus . . . in the plant family Zingiberaceae."

"Cycas is the type genus and the only genus currently recognised in the cycad family Cycadaceae."

"Fagraea is a genus of plant in family Loganiaceae."

"Mentha (mint) is a genus . . . of flowering plants in the family Lamiaceae."

But a reminiscence of the Spanish with pertinente(s) (rarely) turns up:

"Acacia . . . is a group of shrubs and trees belonging to the subfamily Mimosoideae of the family Fabaceae."

"Aglaia is a genus of more than 100 species belonging to the Mahogany family (Meliaceae)."

The notion of "belonging" seems odd (and wordy), but there it is. I've looked in Stearns, but haven't found a standard way of doing it in botanical Latin; quite often in botanical works, the typography makes clear to which family the genera belong, and so the question doesn't arise. A couple of nonwiki sources of apparently genuine botanical Latin have in familia:

"Autores (sic) priores illud genus in familia Zanthoxylearum posuerunt."

"Genus in familia Laelaptidae (sic) inserendum."

Since Vicipaedia will eventually have tens of thousands of articles conveying information about this relationship, it might be useful to establish which formula is standard in botanical Latin. IacobusAmor 21:03, 15 Novembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never saw this comment till now. The two Latin examples both use the form "ponere/inserere + in", for which I would have preferred "in + accusative" but they prefer "in + ablative". I guess you might argue that either way, depending on whether you're gently settling the species in its natural home or removing it from the football field by kicking it into goal.

If we want a formula that would be translated not by English "it has been/should be/must be placed in" but by "it is a [species] in/of/belonging to" (and we do want such a formula quite often) then it seems to me that a double genitive is simple and effective "est planta/arbor/species/genus familiae Orchidacearum". For the reader's sake I generally avoid a double genitive where both genitives have the same number and gender, because the intended syntax might then be unclear, but that's just personal style, and it doesn't apply here given that familiae is singular and Orchidacearum plural.

Other languages are a side issue for us, but one ought to say that the example above Fagraea is a genus of plant in family Loganiaceae is not in standard English. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:49, 6 Iunii 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since the original note was posted, usage in Vicipaedia has settled upon the double genitive, as in familiae Lamiacearum. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 10:39, 6 Iunii 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Satureja mexicana[fontem recensere]

The picture shows a Salvia, not a Satureja. 90.252.88.21 21:29, 5 Iunii 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right, but I don't know how to confirm it, since all three images of this plant are labelled "Satureja mexicana" at Commons. However, if you're sure, you can boldly substitute any suitable image of a real Satureja and change the caption. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:57, 6 Iunii 2018 (UTC)[reply]