Disputatio:Alcaloides

Masculine or neuter?

Our first sentence seems to favour masculine, but offers no solid evidence for masculine except the web page "Paradigms - Numen", and I don't see why we should trust that page, see the disclaimer at the top. Neuter (therefore nom. sing. -es, nom. plural -ea) seems more likely in the chemical context, in which many names of classes of compounds are neuter. As evidence for the plural -ea I can add this dissertation title (vide titulum apud Google Books) and several headings "Alcaloidea narcotica, Alcaloidea narcotico-acria, Alcaloidea aetherea, Alcaloidea acria" to be found in (this book apud Google Books), and all this agrees with Stephen Berard already cited; I would take the form "alcaloidia", already cited on our page, as a misspelling that ought to have been written -ea.

I'm unable to find the citation in footnote 1 and I notice that it is quoted very strangely in our footnote ("carboidrata" looks Italian). Unless it verifiably supports the masculine, or unless there are other similar pagenames already that demonstrate that the masculine is correct, I propose we go for neuter. I'm about to write "Capsaicinoides" so I'd love to clear this up if possible! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:48, 14 Februarii 2024 (UTC)

I also prefer the neuter, but:

• [1]: “quia alcaloides sint”

The one from the Pontificia Universitas Gregoriana had the wrong page number assigned (fixed now) – and definitely “carboidrata” sounds (modeled on) Italian – but I am not sure Italian could have an influence on the choice between masculine and neuter concerning alkaloids, because Italian does not have a neuter. The suffix -oides_(en) per se could perfectly be both neuter (pl. -oidia) or masculine/feminine (pl. -oides). --Grufo (disputatio) 22:42, 14 Februarii 2024 (UTC)

On a second thought: I think it is actually an adjective. If that is the case, when we use it as a substantive adjective (like we do here) it should be neuter (unless the “lost” substantive was masculine/feminine – we should figure out what that was, e.g. compositum alcaloides? materies alcaloides?). --Grufo (disputatio) 22:49, 14 Februarii 2024 (UTC)

In botany, "Generic names ending in -oides or -odes, e.g. Nymphoides, Omphalodes, are treated as feminine" (Stearn, Botanical Latin, third edition, p. 472). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 00:18, 15 Februarii 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for replies. Certainly, in Graeco-Latin grammar, such words are in principle adjectives with a m/f declension differing slightly from a neuter declension. So the botanists are free (of course) to handle these genus names as they do.

As to chemistry, direct sources in scientific Latin are evidently inconsistent but I'd suggest that taking "Compositum" as the "lost" substantive, and taking the neuter plural as "-ea", corresponds both with the majority of sources and with Graeco-Latin grammar. (In particular, we already cite book titles/section headings with the neuter plural -ea; see also the headings "Alcaloidea sedantia, Alcaloidea stupefacientia, Alcaloidea narcotica hypnotica, Narcotica asphyctica seu deprimentia, Alcaloidea narcotica spinantia vel tetanica", nice handy terms, in (all listed here on page x apud Google Books).)

Don't tell me, I know already that "compositum" is also formally a neuter adjective with a "lost" substantive ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:28, 15 Februarii 2024 (UTC)

Incidentally, maybe Stearn discusses this, the unspoken noun for the botanists is clearly not "genus"; it might be "planta". When the generic becomes part of a species name, the unspoken noun could then be "species". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:30, 15 Februarii 2024 (UTC)

I'd also thought that planta might be lurking in the unspoken syntax, so we're in happy agreement here today! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:24, 15 Februarii 2024 (UTC)

I am not surprised about the feminine in botany, because all plants are feminine. I don't remember now the case, but I am sure there are situations in which the same word is feminine when used by botanists and neuter/masculine when used by chemists. In any case, if we change the title, we should still mention the alternative. So, if currently it is

Alcaloides … vel interdum alcaloidia

it should become

Alcaloidia … vel alcaloides

About the plural in -ea instead of -ia, I would not know what to choose, because in Greek it was neither (n. pl. -ειδῆ). By instinct I would say -ia, because I don't know any other case in which an -e- appears out of the blue, while the -i- is very normal (e.g. animal… animalia). By the way, the Greek suffix does not seem very productive already in ancient Greek_(en); and so it is even less productive_(en) in Latin (possibly only modern – although science gave it a boost recently). --Grufo (disputatio) 10:54, 15 Februarii 2024 (UTC)

You're right about (n. pl. -ειδῆ) in Attic Greek, and I am evidently remembering an uncontracted -ea: from what source I have no idea (or "no idee", as Europeans often say when speaking English). Yet, oddly, I'm not alone: "Alcaloidea" has good support in recent printed sources. I can't check further right now :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:31, 15 Februarii 2024 (UTC)

I cannot rule out alcaloidea, since it is attested, but I cannot explain it (the same sources that in the plural use alcaloidea for the nominative use alcaloidum for the genitive, so they clearly use it as a third-declension word). On the other hand, alcaloidia is attested too, and I can explain that one. --Grufo (disputatio) 15:40, 15 Februarii 2024 (UTC)

I didn't point out before, I think, that -oidea (neut. pl.) is a regular official termination used in the names of zoological superfamilies: for a few examples see Categoria:Superfamiliae animalium. I think the singular of these words (though the singular is not commonly used in taxonomy) would have to be -oides, wouldn't it? If so, that amounts to a lot more support for the declension -oides -oidea in scientific Latin. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:42, 6 Martii 2024 (UTC)

I believe that for these cases the singular of -oidea (neut. pl.) would be -oideus, -ea, -eum (adj.). Wiktionary shows no sources_(en) in support, and the suffix is probably completely made up by modern scientists. --Grufo (disputatio) 10:39, 8 Martii 2024 (UTC)

This -oideus, -oidea, -oideum doesn't work here because it's reserved for subfamilies, not superfamilies (Stearn, third edition, p. 103); for example, the subfamily Boraginoideae. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 22:22, 9 Martii 2024 (UTC)

While we decide about the page title, I have added a footnote concerning the form alcaloidea. --Grufo (disputatio) 17:39, 9 Martii 2024 (UTC)