Disputatio:Fossile

Latest comment: abhinc 14 annos by Xaverius

"est aliquid res ex humo fossa" - hanc rem dubio: relicta archaeologica non sunt fossilia. Fortasse debeamus definitionem novam scribere. Propono Fossile est relictum petraeum entium vivorum antiquorum (etc...).--Xaverius 16:44, 17 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply

No, the older meaning of fossile was indeed 'anything dug up', it was often applied to minerals as late as the 18c.; that's what I was pointing out. Pantocrator 20:33, 17 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply
Which begs the question, since this apparently covers everything from dirt to sand to ivory to earthworms to rivers, is it really a necessary page? If I bury my dog at the beach, and then dig her out, is she a fossile? --Ioscius 21:14, 17 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply
No, I was only introducing the older meaning, then going on to the new, about which the rest of the page would have been. Pantocrator 05:42, 18 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply
Then maybe a tense other than the present was needed. And placing it as the first definition, confussing. Maybe after the actuall definiotion of fossil, somthing on the lines of "olim dicitur aliquid res ex humo fossa" should be added.--Xaverius 20:53, 18 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply
A sensible suggestion might be to cover both meanings at fossilia, unless there exists somewhere a page on [[:xyz:dug up things]]? Maybe an entry at Victionarium, too. --Ioscius 21:20, 17 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply
Why is it that important that the title be in the plural? Pantocrator 05:42, 18 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply
I don't know. I suggest the older page be moved to "fossile". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:44, 18 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply
Revertere ad "Fossile".