Disputatio Categoriae:Gastropodorum familiae

Nomen[fontem recensere]

Fortasse potius, declinatione tertia et sicut aliae categoriae nonnullae, Categoria:Familiae gastropodum? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:49, 13 Augusti 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. You've just gone and created a slew of categories that are on my list to create this morning, but you've done so incompletely, failing to import their interwiki links. IacobusAmor 11:57, 13 Augusti 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's Vicipaedia: we each do our little bit! [The reason I started them so quickly, incidentally, is that there happened to be a new dump of "Categoriae desideratae" at 9.25 this morning. I came in from gardening for a cup of coffee just one hour later.]

But what do you think about the title? Was "gastropodorum" a mistake? I just wondered, but you'll know best. If so, it'd be worth while asking UVbot to make the change: it would save time. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:01, 13 Augusti 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both are attested, gastropodum here and gastropodorum here. IacobusAmor 14:01, 28 Septembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... of which gastropodum (gen.pl.) has a principled basis (witness Disputatio:Gastropoda), whereas gastropodorum looks like being a makeshift. Of course, another possibility is that gastropodorum involves a complete domestication: gastropus, -i like the well-attested polypus,-i). Personally, I'd go for gastropodum. Neander 23:15, 28 Septembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add, however, that, given gastropus,-i, the gen.pl. would be gastroporum. Neander 23:21, 28 Septembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No! No! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:52, 29 Septembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forma nominis categoriae[fontem recensere]

Quid est melius: "Categoria:Gastropodorum familiae" vel "Categoria:Familia gastropodorum"? I created the latter today, feeling it to be the more appropriate form (as one now sees Andrew to have suggested above), but then one notices that I created the former many months ago. Changing the latter to the former would be easier, as the latter has only two members (at the moment), while the former has eleven; but of course if the latter is preferable, the eleven would want to be changed. IacobusAmor 14:01, 28 Septembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you have created many other category names on the pattern "Familiae X". For the sake of other Vicipaedians who follow in our footsteps, we should attempt to be consistent with patterns like this; therefore I'd say, your original creation here being the odd one out, the eleven should be moved. But to what exactly? I still prefer "gastropodum". Any further thoughts on that? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:11, 29 Septembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the genitive plurals gastropodorum and gastropodum are in free variation. Both are attested in scientific publications. Maybe someone affiliated with the pertinent official determiner of malacological nomenclature will tell us whether one or the other is preferred. IacobusAmor 13:41, 29 Septembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A search for "gastropodibus -gastropods" (implying the third declension and the genitive plural gastropodum) turns up a handful of attestations outside Vicipaedia, but searching for the dative & ablative gastropodis (implying the second declension) is complicated & confounded by the presence of similar terms in various languages. For most modern readers, the plural form Gastropoda is going to evoke notions of many familiar neuter plurals of the second declension. ¶ This is the same issue that we confront with Cephalopoda. The genitive plural Cephalopodorum is attested in scientific publications. Praeterea, Cephalopodum (n. sing.!) est nomen proprium plantae florentis familiae Apiacearum! IacobusAmor 14:03, 29 Septembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you may be right about the free variation. If that's so, since Iacobus is the one developing these pages, I'd say Iacobus should have the last word. Is the last word gastropodorum, Iacobe? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:50, 29 Septembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]