Adiectivum typicus est terminus technicus in botanica: Stearns (ed. 3a), p. 536: "typical typicus (adj.) . . . typically typice (adv.)." (In Stearns, vox typus solum est nomen substantivum.) Ergo, lemma melius Taxon monotypicum videtur. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:25, 30 Septembris 2013 (UTC)
- Dear IacobusAmor. On Disputatio_Categoriae:Genera_monotypica I have discussed the issue of using monotypicus or monotypus. Both forms, i.e. with -typicus and -typus are attested in Neolatin. However in Greek, compound adjectives with τύπος end on -τύπος (see Liddell & Scott). A limited number of these adjectives has been used in Latin as loan word, with the similar ending -typus (see Lewis & Short) , e.g. archetypus, prototypus, ectypus, zelotypus (?), atypus (?). Only typicus in (classical) Latin ends on -typicus. In my humble opinion, it seems that there is in classical Latin a difference between a compound adjective, consisting of two parts, e.g. multiformis, abnormis, trilaterus and an adjective that take one noun as base, e.g. formalis, normalis, lateralis considering its ending. In Neolatin there seems to be a tendency to construct compound adjectives by affixing a noun, adjective, adverb et cetera to an existing adjective such as typicus. But it seems in my humble opinion not the general rule in classical Latin as can be seen by those aforementioned adjectives on -typus. I have to check William Stearn's botanical Latin when I get home to look at the example you mentioned. Stearn's botanical Latin is however an overview of botanical Latin in current usage with the inclusion of corrupted forms like for example annularis, pyriformis while classical Latin dictates/prefers otherwise. I have discussed with Andrew Dalby to rename these categoriae with -typicus to -typus. I was planning to do so before I stumbled upon this pagina disputationis. So I like to hear your opinion before I even request a move. Thank you very much, with kind regards, Wimpus (disputatio) 10:39, 3 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, Iacobe. You'll have seen my invitation to you to join in at Disputatio_Categoriae:Genera_monotypica. I don't have any strong feeling about this, but my impression was that Wimpus is right: although "typicus" and "typice" indeed exist, compound adjectives based on this word (typically) end in "-typus", not "-typicus". For example, the word "monotypus -a -um" is found several times as a species name.
- Do comment further, either here or at Disputatio_Categoriae:Genera_monotypica. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:31, 3 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
- Dear Iacobus, I have the third edition, sixth impression (1983/1990) of Stearn's botanical Latin (a good read by the way) and I see typicus and typice (p. 536) AND monotypicus (and not monotypus) under mon-/mono- (p. 464/465). As I said before, Stearn vocabulary is a list of Latin and Neolatin words as used by botanists. I can not find any critical remarks within the vocabulary (although in other chapters words are analysed, e.g. nice chapter on color nomenclature) concerning the Latinitas of certain words. Stearn uses words like abnormalis, annularis, connexus, connectivum et cetera instead of abnormis (mentioned as second), anularis (mentioned but redirected to annularis), conexus (not mentioned), conexivum (not mentioned) as can be found in Lewis & Short. As monotypus is also used in binary nomenclature (although not by Stearn) and it seems that classical Latin used primarily adjectives on -typus and not -typicus, it seems 'logical' to use monotypus instead of monotypicus. With kind regards, Wimpus (disputatio) 15:10, 3 Octobris 2013 (UTC)