Disputatio:Nomina botanistarum vernacula
Missing John Gould. ???Hendricus 18:58, 10 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
- Haec transtuli e Vicipaedia Germanica, et nunquam verificavi. Sine dubio exstant errores. Corrige! Sed Gould fuit zoologus; nescio an fuit etiam botanista. Igitur illum reperis apud Index nominum zoologorum. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:33, 10 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
- Right he was a Zoologist...Hendricus 22:42, 10 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
Updating problem
recensereThere is a big problem, I think, for a small Wikipedia, in keeping a list like this correct and updated. I am experimenting with a semi-automatic method, which is to take the regularly-updated list of names from the French wikipedia (copied from fr:Liste des abréviations d'auteur en taxinomie végétale/Liste classée par patronyme to Formula:Nomina botanistarum), not even to try to Latinise the names in the list (because Latinisation has caused numerous errors here) but to present it (at Nomina botanistarum vernacula) purely as a list of abbreviations and vernacular names -- and to make redirects from the vernacular names to all the articles that we actually have. This will then be simple to update. Does it make sense? Do others have any comments or better ideas?
There are several names we have here that the French list doesn't. But that can be solved, I think, by inserting them in the working version of the French list (at fr:Portail:Histoire de la zoologie et de la botanique/Liste des abréviations d'auteur en taxinomie végétale. They will then automatically be formatted over there and can be copied back here! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:24, 13 Martii 2011 (UTC)
- It has always been our policy to allow redirects from names of persons in their native language/common form to their Latin name, e. g. the redirect from Paul Friedrich August Ascherson to Paulus Fridericus Augustus Ascherson. Therefore, nearly all of the entries in the French list are perfectly fine as redirects.
- There is just one slight disadvantage: If we copy over the list from fr: unchanged, then we end up with a few redirects with a disambiguation hint in French, e. g. Thomas Anderson (botaniste), John Ball (naturaliste), William Baxter (naturaliste écossais), William Baxter (naturaliste anglais), James Bruce (explorateur), John Stuart (3e comte de Bute), George Gordon (éditeur) or George Gordon (horticulteur) (there are currently 54 of them). But in my view, the advantages of the procedure you describe clearly outweigh the disadvantage of having 54 redirects with a disambiguation hint in French, so in my view, this is perfectly acceptable. Greetings, --UV 21:11, 13 Martii 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for that comment. Although I remembered to pipe out the French disambiguation hints when copying the file, I had forgotten that it would still be necessary to provide redirects from some of them! I'm glad that there will be no more than 54.
- I'll go ahead and work on the B-Z redirects now. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:49, 15 Martii 2011 (UTC)
- I have now finished that process, and I am redirecting this old page to the new one.
- I have also checked the subcategories of Categoria:Botanistae and I have included (in the French Wikipedia, and hence now in our list too) all the unlinked botanists that I found there. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:27, 23 Martii 2011 (UTC)
De botanistis in indicem addendis = How to add a botanist
recensereN.B.: si vis nomen botanistae alicuius addere, noli in hac pagina inscribere. Oportet eum rite in pagina Francogallica "Portail:Histoire de la zoologie et de la botanique/Liste des abréviations d'auteur en taxinomie végétale" inscribere (vide ad pedem paginae sub "Nexibus externis"); et postea redirectionem Vicipaedicam a nomine Francogallico ad nomen Latinum creare.
Si nomen botanistae, de quo paginam novam scripsisti, iam in hac pagina reperitur, etiam simplicius! Redirectionem crea e forma nominis hic exstante ad titulum Latinum paginae novae tuae.
If you want to add a botanist to the list, do not try to edit this page. Instead, add the name (using correct formatting) to the French page "Portail:Histoire de la zoologie et de la botanique/Liste des abréviations d'auteur en taxinomie végétale"; you can follow the link at "Nexus externi" at the foot of our page. Then create a redirect in Vicipaedia from the French form of the name to the Latin form. Everything will then follow automatically.
If you have created a page for a botanist already listed here, even easier! Just make a redirect from the form of name you find here to the title of your new page. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:59, 23 Martii 2011 (UTC)
Botanista or botanicus?
recensereIs there a good source for botanista? Stearn's Botanical Latin (1983) has botanicus as translation of botanist. Otherwise I would be in favor to rename this lemma. Thank you for your response. With kind regards, Wimpus (disputatio) 23:14, 6 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC)
- I think you may be right, Wimpus. Unluckily we also use "Botanistae" in our category names for these people. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:30, 7 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not sure now. Stearn is a very good source, naturally, but the word "botanistae" has existed, and for quite a long time. Here are three references: (vide textum paginae v apud Google Books); (vide textum p. i apud Google Books); (vide p. 82 lineam 2 apud Google Books). There are others also. As a word meaning very specifically "people who study plants", I think it may be OK. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:38, 7 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC)
- It occurs to me, further, that gen.pl. "botanicorum" is potentially ambiguous: it could be construed as neuter, "botanical things". "Botanistarum" has no such ambiguity. So, all in all, I don't think there is any strong reason for a move here. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:42, 8 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you Andrew for looking further than Stearn. You are absolutely right that botanistae existed for quite a long time. I must admit that my position was biased as in my own native tongue (Dutch) botanicus (and in German Botaniker) is used. In Schicklum's Lateinisch-Deutsches Special-Wörterbuch (1879) and in Kraus' (1840) Kritisch-etymologisches medicinisches Lexicon, Botanicus is used for Pflanzenkundige/Botaniker and Botanista is absent in both dictionaries. In Ancient Greek (according to Liddell & Scott): βοτανικός ἰατρός is used for herbalist and βοτανικοί for herb-gatherers. I can not find βοτανιστής in Liddell & Scott. It seems that botanicus is more akin to Greek βοτανικός or βοτανικός ἰατρός than botanista. But, the latter is found in Latin, so in this case valid. In New Greek βοτανολόγος is used for English botanist. Botanologus can also be found a limited number of times in Latin. But, why do we use botanista, while in classical Latin herbarius was used and is used as translation of botanist in Traupman's Latin & English dictionary. I do not suggest a rename anymore, as the situation is more complicated than I initially envisioned. With kind regards, Wimpus (disputatio) 18:03, 11 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC)
- The vocabulary is usually going to be problematic when the international language of science comes into play. All herbalists (herbarii) are presumably botanists, but not all botanists (botanistae, botanici, botanologi) are herbalists. In addition to plants, modern botanists study fungi & algae, which in classical times may not have been perceived to be herbae. Similarly, botany is the ars herbaria, but many botanists, at least in English, would deny that they practice only the herbalists' art. ¶ Also, the concepts of botanice and herbalismus yield separate & distinct articles in many wikis, including the biggest. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:53, 11 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC)
- Dear IacobusAmor, thank you for exposé. It is quite complicated. With kind regards, Wimpus (disputatio) 19:10, 11 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC)
- The vocabulary is usually going to be problematic when the international language of science comes into play. All herbalists (herbarii) are presumably botanists, but not all botanists (botanistae, botanici, botanologi) are herbalists. In addition to plants, modern botanists study fungi & algae, which in classical times may not have been perceived to be herbae. Similarly, botany is the ars herbaria, but many botanists, at least in English, would deny that they practice only the herbalists' art. ¶ Also, the concepts of botanice and herbalismus yield separate & distinct articles in many wikis, including the biggest. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:53, 11 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you Andrew for looking further than Stearn. You are absolutely right that botanistae existed for quite a long time. I must admit that my position was biased as in my own native tongue (Dutch) botanicus (and in German Botaniker) is used. In Schicklum's Lateinisch-Deutsches Special-Wörterbuch (1879) and in Kraus' (1840) Kritisch-etymologisches medicinisches Lexicon, Botanicus is used for Pflanzenkundige/Botaniker and Botanista is absent in both dictionaries. In Ancient Greek (according to Liddell & Scott): βοτανικός ἰατρός is used for herbalist and βοτανικοί for herb-gatherers. I can not find βοτανιστής in Liddell & Scott. It seems that botanicus is more akin to Greek βοτανικός or βοτανικός ἰατρός than botanista. But, the latter is found in Latin, so in this case valid. In New Greek βοτανολόγος is used for English botanist. Botanologus can also be found a limited number of times in Latin. But, why do we use botanista, while in classical Latin herbarius was used and is used as translation of botanist in Traupman's Latin & English dictionary. I do not suggest a rename anymore, as the situation is more complicated than I initially envisioned. With kind regards, Wimpus (disputatio) 18:03, 11 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC)
- It occurs to me, further, that gen.pl. "botanicorum" is potentially ambiguous: it could be construed as neuter, "botanical things". "Botanistarum" has no such ambiguity. So, all in all, I don't think there is any strong reason for a move here. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:42, 8 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC)