Quantum redactiones paginae "Disputatio Usoris:Wimpus~lawiki" differant

Page contents not supported in other languages.
E Vicipaedia
Browse history interactively
← Differentia superiorDifferentia proxima →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
mNo edit summary
Linea 105: Linea 105:
Tell me what you think about this! <font face="Gill Sans">[[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew]]<font color="green">[[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby| Dalby]]</font></font> 12:44, 3 Augusti 2014 (UTC)
Tell me what you think about this! <font face="Gill Sans">[[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew]]<font color="green">[[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby| Dalby]]</font></font> 12:44, 3 Augusti 2014 (UTC)
:Addendum: Looking at the ''Oxford Latin Dictionary'' I now think that "planes" nom.sg. is a tentative extrapolation, by modern lexicographers, from Gellius's "planetes" nom.pl. No one really uses the singular form, and only Gellius knows whether it existed in his internal grammar. <font face="Gill Sans">[[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew]]<font color="green">[[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby| Dalby]]</font></font> 12:58, 3 Augusti 2014 (UTC)
:Addendum: Looking at the ''Oxford Latin Dictionary'' I now think that "planes" nom.sg. is a tentative extrapolation, by modern lexicographers, from Gellius's "planetes" nom.pl. No one really uses the singular form, and only Gellius knows whether it existed in his internal grammar. <font face="Gill Sans">[[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew]]<font color="green">[[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby| Dalby]]</font></font> 12:58, 3 Augusti 2014 (UTC)
::Dear Andrew, I am not a astronomer, or familiar with astronomic writings in classical Latin. So, my addition was merely based on the dictionary entries I encountered.. So, thank you for specifying this. With kind regards, [[Usor:Wimpus|Wimpus]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Wimpus|disputatio]]) 09:25, 7 Augusti 2014 (UTC)

Emendatio ex 09:25, 7 Augusti 2014

Salve, Wimpus!

Gratus aut grata in Vicipaediam Latinam acciperis! Ob contributa tua gratias agimus speramusque te delectari posse et manere velle.

Cum Vicipaedia nostra parva humilisque sit, paucae et exiguae sunt paginae auxilii, a quibus hortamur te ut incipias:

Si plura de moribus et institutis Vicipaedianis scire vis, tibi suademus, roges in nostra Taberna, vel roges unum ex magistratibus directe.

In paginis encyclopaedicis mos noster non est nomen dare, sed in paginis disputationis memento editis tuis nomen subscribere, litteris impressis --~~~~, quibus insertis nomen tuum et dies apparebit. Quamquam vero in paginis ipsis nisi lingua Latina uti non licet, in paginis disputationum qualibet lingua scribi solet. Quodsi quid interrogare velis, vel Taberna vel pagina disputationis mea tibi patebit. Ave! Spero te "Vicipaedianum" aut "Vicipaedianam" fieri velle!Jondel (disputatio) 08:14, 12 Septembris 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Latinitas

This hardly needs saying ... but your corrections are very welcome. Go on doing this! Andrew Dalby 13:51, 12 Septembris 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks, Wimpus (disputatio) 14:10, 12 Septembris 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Exoptatus ad Vicipaediam Latinam Wimpe. :) Si adiumentum alicui requiris vel aliquid loquendum, librum senti cum aliis Vicipaediae Latinae in paginis disputationis sive in taberna communicare. Nisi scis quomodo tabernam invenis, nexus est in pagina prima, et etiam scribere potes "Vicipaedia:Taberna" in "Quaerere" (search Anglice). In hac taberna disputamus, non edere, bibere, nec emere. :)

Nota; praeter linguam latinam probare, etiam tu adiuvas linguam supervivere. :)

Donatello (disputatio) 16:17, 12 Septembris 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Systema endocrines

Please respond, if you want, to my comment at this link: Disputatio:Systema endocrines. I'm really not sure what is the best answer for us :) Two other comments:

  1. If you move a page, please don't change any associated category name until the category itself has been moved. Otherwise, people using categories can't find the page.
  2. If you move a page -- unless the old name was an obvious mistake -- you should cite a source for the new name, in a footnote on the page. If you find a good source that contradicts your new name (as with Terminologia histologica here) it's normally best to mention both names on the page, and cite sources for both. Andrew Dalby 09:37, 13 Septembris 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you ...

... again! I commented, belatedly, at Disputatio Categoriae:Genera monotypica. Andrew Dalby 14:47, 2 Octobris 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Enteroctopus dofleini

Ave Wimpe. :) Quaeso adiuva apud paginam disputationis commentationis Enteroctopodis dofleini. -- Donatello (disputatio) 11:21, 20 Octobris 2013 (UTC).[reply]

About the ending "-oides" in plural

Greetings Wimpus. :) About the ending "-oides" from Greek derived words in Latin nouns: there was some time ago a discussion about androides in "Disputatio:Androides" in the section "Est 'androidis' Latine?" where we came to the plural "-oidea" of these nouns. But you might be right with "-oides" and also with "gynaecoides". But before you changed these words, I would recommend that you add your knowledge in that discussion. It might be easier for us concerning the words of "-oides" in plural and the "gynaecoides" who participated or read that discussion. :)

On the other hand, the "-oides" as "-oides" in plural becomes more structured and easier for people, because it would follow the plural pattern of the masuline and feminine words of the third declension.

Donatello (disputatio) 03:52, 4 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into the local language
The Cure Award
In 2013 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you so much for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date medical information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do!

We are wondering about the educational background of our top medical editors. Would you please complete a quick 5-question survey? (please only fill this out if you received the award)

Thanks again :) --Ocaasi, Doc James and the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation

Congratulations, Wimpus! Your work on Latin terminology is much appreciated! Andrew Dalby 08:59, 9 Iulii 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ligamentum decussatum anterius Medical correction

Your improvements are appreciated. The sources would be needed. I will try to search them and add them. Cruciatum seems to be more familiar to medical people although as you say it, associateed with torture.--Jondel (disputatio) 00:35, 9 Iulii 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Medical correction

Your improvements are appreciated. The sources would be needed. I will try to search them and add them. Cruciatum seems to be more familiar to medical people although as you say it, associateed with torture.--Jondel (disputatio) 00:35, 9 Iulii 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jondel, I have added one source (I am partially disabled in copying my references while using my iPad). You can read about the confusion concerning to torture and and to crucify with to cross on the English wikipedia cruciate ligament I've wrote. i've checked multiple editions of the Nomina Anatomica and the Ienaiensia Nomina Anatomica is quite clear in replacing this barbaric term. However, other editions neglected this issue (although a footnote explained that some member suggested to use ligamentum decussatum instead). With kinds regards, Wimpus (disputatio) 00:49, 9 Iulii 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wimpus, I just came from there. Nice catch! Pardon me if I am brusque using this/these term/terms, but if I don't, things stagnate. No one else seems to want to write them.(but of course they do, still everyone has little time.)--Jondel (disputatio) 00:53, 9 Iulii 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Within anatomy, it is quite common to use ligamenta cruciata as most of the anatomists are not aware that they are referring to tortured or crucified ligaments. So, it might be useful to retain this akward term. Thanks and with kind regards, Wimpus (disputatio) 01:00, 9 Iulii 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your welcome. --Jondel (disputatio) 01:03, 9 Iulii 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Babae! Fons optima est!--Jondel (disputatio) 00:42, 9 Iulii 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am very glad that you have found a better, well sourced, term. The word "cruciatum" made me uncomfortable (if I can put it like that), but, being no scientist, I was happy enough to have found a Latin phrase at all, and did not have time to look further. Andrew Dalby 08:57, 9 Iulii 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The last (Terminologia Anatomica) (1998) and the first edition (Basiliensia Nomina Anatomica) (1895) of the official Latin anatomic nomenclature are available online. The editions that were ratified in 1935, 1955, 1961, 1966, 1977, 1983 and 1989 are not full text available online (as far as I know). However, I 'collect' these printed editions. Only the edition ratified in 1961 is missing on my shelves (and actually three of the four slightly different editions of the one that was ratified in 1935). The edition of 1935 corrected many mistakes in grammar and orthography of the preceding edition of 1895. However, the editions from 1955 on, were devised by anatomists with different points of viewsconcerning Latinitas as in the prefaces of these editions (and in related articles) it is stated:
"The more the Latin terms can be made to resemble its vernacular equivalent, the easier it is to guess the significance of the Latin term"
"Pedantic insistence on anulus for annulus (despite the familiar annular and annulaire)......are a few examples of misplaced scholastic zeal."
"The use of genitives cannot be entirely avoided, but the '-orums', '-arums', '-iums' and '-uums' are scarcely encouraging to the non-Latinist!"
"The I.A.N.C. has repeatedly declared pedantry anathema".
"All diphthongs should be eliminated".
Some terms in some editions of the Nomina Anatomica/Terminologia Anatomica are dubious at least, like glandula thyroidea = doorlike gland (English: thyroid gland) instead of glandula thyreoidea/thyreoidica = shieldlike gland (German: Schilddrüse not Türdrüse), omphalocoelia = belly button-abdomen instead of omphalocele = umbilical hernia (confusion of Greek κοιλία and κήλη), choroidea (=dancelike) instead of chorioides (=like a membrane (that encloses the foetus)). So, in those cases I prefer to select the more Latinate forms as attested in the 1935 edition of the Nomina Anatomica. However I also make use of the 1910 edition of Triepel (also with the name Nomina Anatomica), but not ratified by a larger committee of anatomists. Some of his suggestions were incorporated in the 1935 edition, but many not (although preferable from a linguistic point of view). In case you might have a question concerning the official anatomic nomenclature, please post a request on this page and will be grateful if I can be of any assistence. With kind regards, Wimpus (disputatio) 12:16, 9 Iulii 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond anatomy ...

Do you have any comment on the pagename Ictus (circulatorius), or can you suggest the best Latin source to use for names of illnesses?

Thanks in any case for the very interesting details above. Andrew Dalby 13:32, 9 Iulii 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Andrew, I am not well versed in nosology :( When trying to determine names of diseases that are coined during the last fifty years, I am primarily using medical dictionaries that are not available online (as far as I know) for free. Although Dorland's medical dictionary (2000) is an American English dictionary, it does contain some names of illnessess in Latin. However, I am aware that they anglicize in some cases the spelling of the Latin nomenclature (meralgia paresthetica instead of meralgia paraesthetica [diphthong!]). In addition, I use dictionaries from other languages like for example Dutch (I am Dutch) (such as Pinkhof Geneeskundig woordenboek, that writes meralgia paraesthetica) or German. As I am familiar with those dictionaries, I feel less the urge to use an online medical dictionary of unknow provenance. And using only one source can be limited as it might use some barbaric orthography.
The International Classification of Diseases, version 10 (ICD10) is however available online. Some names are also rendered in Latin. Please be aware, that some English expressions are translated to Latin in the German and Dutch 'translations' of the ICD10. In some cases the 'barbaric' Latin of the English ICD10 is modified in one of its translated versions. The German translation of the ICD10 correctly writes erythema anulare while the original English version writes erythema annulare (classical Latin dictates anulare instead of annulare). So in case you encounter an expression with some odd orthography, you might want to check those translations to find the correct spelling.
For names of diseases that were coined a long time ago, I can make use of a few interesting medical dictionaries that are available online, Kraus' (1844) Kritisch-etymologisches medicinisches Lexikon and Foster's (1891) An illustrated medical dictionary. Being a dictionary of the technical terms used by writers on medicine and the collateral sciences, in the Latin, English, French, and German languages. When trying to translate shock were faced with some difficulty as this word is not composed of Greek and of Latin roots and comparable Germanic words can be found in other European languages. In those cases, I check the Modern Greek wikipedia and find Καταπληξία. I know we have discussed with multiple editors that Modern Greek is not imperative for making compounds in Latin, it might give you some direction where to look for. In Kraus (1844) we find the similar medical term cataplexis in a sense that is too broad das Erschrecken, das Zusammenfahren, and not clearly with the more modern medical meaning of circulatory shock. In Foster (1891) the term shock is used with a description that is more akin to what is actually meant. It is translated in Foster (1891)as collisus in Latin (Lewis & Short translate collisio with shock) and as σύγκρουσις in (ancient?) Greek (translated as collision in Liddell & Scott). Whether collisus can still be aplied to circulatory shock and is used in more recent dictionaries I have to check in some multilingual medical dictionaries. With kind regards, Wimpus (disputatio) 13:59, 10 Iulii 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The OED derives English shock from French choc and choquer, and says the original English use of the word was military, defined thus: 'the encounter of an armed force with the enemy in a charge or onset; also, the encounter of two mounted warriors or jousters charging one another'. (This sense may inhere in the Pentagon's shock and awe.) The closest one-word rendering of that might indeed be collision, for which Latin concursus tooks good, though it might seem strange in the medical sense. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:59, 28 Iulii 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had not considered concursus yet. Concursus is the (Neo?-)Latin rendering[1][2] of ancient Greek συνδρομή (syndroma[3][4][5] or syndrome [1][2]). So my personal preference would not be to use this word as it can be considered a synonym of συνδρομή in medical Latin.
It seems that the description used in Dorland's medical dictionary for shock[6][7][8] and Pinkhof Geneeskundig woordenboek[9] is comparable to the definition of shock in Foster's medical dictionary.[10] that used the synonyms collisus and σύγκρουσις. Moreover, shock seems to used synonymously with circulatory shock. Please notice, that small differences exist and later works may use more fine-grained classifications. These aforementioned dictionaries have also other meanings for the term shock when it is not joined by a specifying adjective.
Synonyms in modern langugues for circulatory shock derived from Latin collapsus exist as English collapse [6][11] and circulatory collapse,[7][12][8] French collapsus circulatoire,[11][12] Spanish colapso circulatorio,[11] German Kreislaufkollaps [11] and Dutch circulatoire collaps.[9] In medical Latin I can find collapsus,[10][13][14][15]. There are however slight differences in definition. There are however different sorts of collapses, like in Latin the collapsus pulmonum,[13][16] in English the collapse of vertebrae,[12] the collapse of aneurysmal sac [12] and in Dutch vasovagale collaps,[9] precollaps,[9] cardiovagale collaps,[9] venencollaps.[9] The name circulatory collapse can be defined two-fold; 1. A collapse of the circulatory system or 2. collapse (in the sense of collapsus corporis, attested in Castelli[1]) due to a failing of the circulatory system. So, it seems advisable to use a specifying adjective or genitive. On Google collapsus circulatorius can be found, although not in sources I am familiar with. With kind regards, Wimpus (disputatio) 14:07, 28 Iulii 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, English wikipedia includes ICD10 Shock, unspecified (code R57) that includes code R57.9, Shock, unspecified-Failure of peripheral circulation NOS what is called "Schock, nicht näher bezeichnet" but also Kardiovaskulärer Kollaps in the German translation of ICD10. And collapsus cardio-vasculaire in French is the same (according to some[12]) as a circulatory shock. With kind regards, Wimpus (disputatio) 14:37, 28 Iulii 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Castelli, B. & Bruno, J.P (1713). Lexicon medicum Graeco-Latinum. Leipzig: F. Thomas
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Kraus, L.A. (1844). Kritisch-etymologisches medicinisches Lexikon (Dritte Auflage). Göttingen: Verlag der Deuerlich- und Dieterichschen Buchhandlung.
  3. ↑ International Anatomical Nomenclature Committee (1977). Nomina Embryologica.’’ Amsterdam-Oxford: Excerpta Medica.
  4. ↑ International Anatomical Nomenclature Committee (1983). Nomina Embryologica and Nomina.’’ Baltimore/London: Williams & Wilkins
  5. ↑ International Anatomical Nomenclature Committee (1989). Nomina Embryologica.’’ Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone.
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Dorland, W.A.N. & Miller, E.C.L. (1948). ‘’The American illustrated medical dictionary.’’ (21st edition). Philadelphia/London: W.B. Saunders Company.
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 Taylor, E.J. (1988). Dorland’s illustrated medical dictionary (27th edition). Philadelphia/London/Toronto/Montreal/Sydney/Tokyo: W.B. Saunders Company.
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 Anderson, D.M. (2000). Dorland’s illustrated medical dictionary (29th edition). Philadelphia/London/Toronto/Montreal/Sydney/Tokyo: W.B. Saunders Company.
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 Everdingen, J.J.E. van, Eerenbeemt, A.M.M. van den (2012). Pinkhof Geneeskundig woordenboek (12de druk). Houten: Bohn Stafleu Van Loghum.
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 Foster, F.D. (1891-1893). An illustrated medical dictionary. Being a dictionary of the technical terms used by writers on medicine and the collateral sciences, in the Latin, English, French, and German languages. New York: D. Appleton and Company.
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 Sliosberg, A. (1975). Elsevier’s medical dictionary in five languages. English/American / French / Italian / Spanish and German. (2nd edition). Amsterdam/Oxford/New York: Elsevier’s Scientific Publishing Company.
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 Gladstone, W.J. & Roche, P. (1990). ‘’Dictionnaire anglais-français des sciences médicales et paramédicales/English-French dictionary of medical and paramedical sciences.’’ (3rd edition). Québec: Edisem/Paris: Maloine.
  13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 Roth, O., & Gessler, H. (1897). Klinische terminologie (5. Auflage). Leipzig: Verlag von Arthur Georgi.
  14. ↑ Haan, H.R.M. de & Dekker, W.A.L. (1955-1957). Groot woordenboek der geneeskunde. Encyclopaedia medica. Leiden: L. Stafleu.
  15. ↑ Arnaudov, G.D. (1964). Terminologia medica polyglotta. Latinum-Bulgarski-Russkij-English-Français-Deutsch. Sofia: Editio medicina et physcultura.
  16. ↑ Pinkhof, H. (1923). Vertalend en verklarend woordenboek van uitheemsche geneeskundige termen. Haarlem: De Erven F. Bohn.

Andromeda

Hi, Wimpus. Of course you were right about "galaxias", but I moved the page again, because Andromeda is not the name of that galaxy but of the constellation in which it is seen. I found that "Nebula Andromedae" is easily traced as a common Latin name, so I used that. I added to the page the official designation, "M31" or "Messier 31". Andrew Dalby 11:38, 28 Iulii 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Planeta

I want to explain what I did there. We need to simplify our first sentences where we can, so it is not a good thing to add more alternative terms to first sentences if those alternatives are rarely used and not recommended to readers. That seems to be the case with the variants planetis nom.sg., planes nom.sg., planetis gen.sg., planetes nom.pl. They are so rare, I think, that dictionaries disagree about parsing them!

If we want to cite these forms (which is fine) it is best either to put them in footnotes, or to have a section of the article headed "nomina" or "etymologia" and to put them there.

I did not realise at first that you had added so much material today: if I had understood that, I would have waited longer. But I guess I would still have done the same thing :) Modern dictionaries are handy as collections of information, but in the case of a rare form it may be better to cite a classical source directly. In this case, "planetes" is used by Aulus Gellius, who also suggests "stellae erraticae". Well, it's interesting, but he's a lexicography freak, so his stuff can be reduced entirely to footnotes. Who uses "planes" nom.sg. I don't know, but when we find it I think it, too, could go in a footnote. The interesting terms for most readers, I think, are "planeta" and "stella errans", and we had no citations for the latter, so I added a couple.

Tell me what you think about this! Andrew Dalby 12:44, 3 Augusti 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Looking at the Oxford Latin Dictionary I now think that "planes" nom.sg. is a tentative extrapolation, by modern lexicographers, from Gellius's "planetes" nom.pl. No one really uses the singular form, and only Gellius knows whether it existed in his internal grammar. Andrew Dalby 12:58, 3 Augusti 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Andrew, I am not a astronomer, or familiar with astronomic writings in classical Latin. So, my addition was merely based on the dictionary entries I encountered.. So, thank you for specifying this. With kind regards, Wimpus (disputatio) 09:25, 7 Augusti 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Receptum de "https://la.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Disputatio_Usoris:Wimpus~lawiki&oldid=2777608"