Disputatio:Zea mays
Nomen
[fontem recensere]Possumus eligere nomen botanicum speciei (Mays) aut binomen (Zea mays). Sed fortasse alii editores meliora nomina reperire possunt ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:31, 17 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
- Procul dubio "Maizum" attestari potest, tamen ego semper Maizium, fontibus et Novae et Nostrae aetatis, vidi. --Iustinus 17:31, 17 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
- Fortasse ergo optime: "Maizium, vel Maizum (binomen: Zea mays), est. . . ." IacobusAmor 16:30, 26 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
Far!
[fontem recensere]Haec e prima sententia removi: " vel Latinitate pura far[1]
- ↑ D. P. Simpson, Cassell's Latin Dictionary (Novi Eboraci: Wiley Publishing, 1968), p. 757).
De Zea mays Romani antiqui nihil scierunt. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:02, 2 Maii 2015 (UTC)
- Are you then going to get rid of glans for 'bullet'? That's also the (pure) Latin recommended by Cassell's. The linguistic processes are identical. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:32, 2 Maii 2015 (UTC)
- It's curious, though, that Cassell's, being classically based, even has an entry for maize; there are no entries for tomato, chocolate, etc. And why far and not triticum, hordeum, or the broader frumentum? Glans at least can be seen as the ancestor in some what of the modern bullet. Perhaps the fact that it appears in Cassell's merits a note, but I think "pura Latinitas" is misleading here. Lesgles (disputatio) 19:13, 2 Maii 2015 (UTC)
- Cassell's has "corn (the grain), frumentum (sing. = grain, plur. = standing corn)." Under corn, Traupman gives in and has maizium. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:09, 2 Maii 2015 (UTC)
- The difference there is that Cassell's was compiled in Britain, whereas Traupman worked in the US: the word "corn" has different meanings in the two countries. Can you quote verbatim what Cassell's says s.v. "maize"? I don't have a copy. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:19, 2 Maii 2015 (UTC)
- Cassell's has just two words: "maize, far." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 00:31, 3 Maii 2015 (UTC)
- And if anybody notices and asks: yes, the comma after maize here in Cassell's is in boldface, maintaining the traditional typographical standard, in which punctuation immediately after boldfaced matter is itself bolded. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 00:31, 3 Maii 2015 (UTC)
- Cassell's has just two words: "maize, far." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 00:31, 3 Maii 2015 (UTC)
- The difference there is that Cassell's was compiled in Britain, whereas Traupman worked in the US: the word "corn" has different meanings in the two countries. Can you quote verbatim what Cassell's says s.v. "maize"? I don't have a copy. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:19, 2 Maii 2015 (UTC)
- Cassell's has "corn (the grain), frumentum (sing. = grain, plur. = standing corn)." Under corn, Traupman gives in and has maizium. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:09, 2 Maii 2015 (UTC)
- I did have a discussion with Jondel about whether we should cite a dictionary/glossary for what is an obvious error or not. (The culprit in that case was, probably, Traupman's printer: I can't remember where the discussion is.) I think better not, on the whole -- least said, soonest mended -- and that's why I didn't transfer the information about Cassell's to a footnote, but if others think we need to, OK. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:36, 2 Maii 2015 (UTC)
- It's curious, though, that Cassell's, being classically based, even has an entry for maize; there are no entries for tomato, chocolate, etc. And why far and not triticum, hordeum, or the broader frumentum? Glans at least can be seen as the ancestor in some what of the modern bullet. Perhaps the fact that it appears in Cassell's merits a note, but I think "pura Latinitas" is misleading here. Lesgles (disputatio) 19:13, 2 Maii 2015 (UTC)