Disputatio:Newton (unitas)

Newtonus/Newton

Pars accepta a: Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby § Newtonus/Newton

Hi Andrew. Here both newton and newtonus were without source. Should we not in this case simply use the name after which the unit was named, which in Latin is Newtonus? An indeclinable unit is a nasty one. --Grufo (disputatio) 19:16, 28 Martii 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Grufo. I wasn't certain about the rationale for "Newtonium", which sounds like an element, but it was at least a possible Latin method. If a proper name in Latin is borrowed as the name of something different, it will typically take an adjectival form in the appropriate gender. "Newtonus" was worse, I think, because it's masculine and not an adjectival form: it sounds like a man.

I'd have said the move to Newtonus was against our guidelines without a source. By those guidelines I had no more options without a source, so the only possible move was to adopt the official international form. "Newton" without any change is used in the great majority of languages; we can accept that, and treat it as neuter indeclinable, until a good source tells us to do it differently, don't you think? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:11, 28 Martii 2024 (UTC)

The only thing that worries me is the indeclinable nature of the noun (although there is Newton, -onis, m. used by Euler – but for the surname, not the unit). I really do not know what our policy here is. As far as I know in English the only units whose names come from proper nouns not treated verbatim are the volt (from Volta) and the farad (from Faraday). All the other units use a form that is identical to the name of the scientist – but I guess this can change from country to country. Classical Latin units of measurement could easily be feminine or masculine or neuter. My conservative guess is that we should treat the unit like we treat the name of the scientist, so if we write “Isaacus Newtonus, vel Isaacus Newton (-onis, m.)” for the scientist, then we should write “newtonus, vel newton (-onis, m.)” for the unit. --Grufo (disputatio) 20:35, 28 Martii 2024 (UTC)

I must admit that "newtonium", the old pagename, was a worse choice than I thought at first. There was a hypothetical element thus named in the 19th century. Moreover, you can buy newtonium today on the cryptocurrency market, although I suppose it has no more reality than the currency itself :)

I have actually found a source now, though I wish I hadn't. If you look up Neutonio (Spanish) and newton (English, I take it) as vernacular words in the Diccionario Auxiliar you will find the Latin translation "neotoniana mensura". "Neutonius" and "Neutonus" are both found in some sources as Newton's Latin name, but where does J. J. Del Col get the "neo-" in this proposed term? Is it pseudo-Greek, or a misprint? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:45, 29 Martii 2024 (UTC)

No, not a misprint, because David Morgan, acknowledging Egger, adopts Neoton- several times in reference to Isaac Newton. So it's pseudo-Greek. Andrew Dalby (disputatio)

Okay, so, whether with neo- or with new-, we still do not have a name for the unit – except for “neotoniana mensura” (but then it would be better to call it neotoniana vis, “Newton force”, more or less like we call “Planck force” the unit for the force in the Planck system of units)… Also “neotoniana mensura” suggests that Newton invented an entire system of units, like Unitates Stoneyanae and Unitates Planckianae, but that is not the case, because the system of units in this case is the International System of Units, with only one unit dedicated to Newton. If we really want to be creative, we could propose newtoneum or newtonarius, which are what I believe a Roman might do (except for the “w”) – but those would also be without sources… P.S. Should we move this discussion to Disputatio:Newton (unitas)? --Grufo (disputatio) 16:43, 29 Martii 2024 (UTC)

Let's not be creative. On this page, which is not to be despised, I find "Neotoniana gravitatis et ponderis mensio". "Mensio" is just as good as "mensura" or better (it's classical but rare). For me "Neotoniana mensio" would do as the second lemma, and I accept from our two new sources that the word "Neotonianus -a -um" exists in a relevant sense. So I would write "Neotonianum (plenius Neotoniana mensio)", I would cite Steffen Polster for this and J J Del Col for the alternative phrase, and keep on looking for something even better. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:59, 29 Martii 2024 (UTC)

@Andrew I moved the discussion here to make it easily accessible.

The expression you mention, “Neotoniana gravitatis et ponderis mensio”, is proposed as the translation of de:Newtonsches Gravitationsgesetz, which is the German name of en:Newton's law of universal gravitation. I find it odd that the author proposes that particular expression for “Newton's law of gravitation” (“Newtonsches Gravitationsgesetz”), but the same author proposes “leges Newtoni” for “Newton's laws” (“Newtonsche Gesetze”). Here we use “Lex universalis gravitationis Newtoniana” and “Leges motus Newtoni” for the two (I believe both have multiple attestations in Latin sources).

I have nothing against “mensio” as a word (both “mensio” and “mensura” are classical); but whether we use “Neotoniana mensio” or “Neotoniana mensura”, both would translate as “Newtononian unit (of the force)”. But then the page would be "Neotoniana (plenius Neotoniana mensio)" – usually substantive adjectives keep the original gender (e.g. “centesima (pars)”). Consider also that we extensively use the term “mensura” elsewhere when we talk about measurement systems. Insterestingly, however, Lewis & Short mention “metre, quantity” as another translation of “mensio”, which in my opinion makes it more suitable.

As for neo- vs new-, Newton himself used “Newtonus” for his own Latin signature, so I would stick to his will.

Recap. I would not mind either “Newtoniana (mensio)” or “Newtoniana (unitas)” for the name of the page. --Grufo (disputatio) 19:27, 29 Martii 2024 (UTC)

OK, I like your suggestions. The feminine works well, I think. We can easily find sources for "Newtonianus -a -um", so there's no reason not to adjust the spelling suggested by Polster and Del Col. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:38, 29 Martii 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Then let's wait a bit and see if others write what they think, and eventually we move the page. --Grufo (disputatio) 19:40, 29 Martii 2024 (UTC)