Disputatio:Particula elementaris

Haec pagina movenda videtur ad Particula elementaria, quam tamen antea delere oportet. --Fabullus 20:34, 6 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)

Delevi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:38, 6 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)

Gratias tibi ago! --Fabullus 20:51, 6 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)

Pendet pars 1856a ponderis proti.

? The one thousand eighteen hundred fifty-sixth piece of a weight the prots is hanging. IacobusAmor 12:02, 13 Maii 2010 (UTC)

Correct?

A friendly anonymus changed the declension of the particles from 2nd neut. (proton -i, pl. prota) to 3rd neut. (electron -onis, pl. -ona). Probably correct, and certainly it agrees with the articles about the individual particles, but do we have sources for this?

A google search for "+electrona +protona +neutrona" seems to retrieve Vicipaedia mirrors and some pages that aren't in Latin. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:37, 5 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)

You'll not find a ancient latin or otherwise philologically good source since all the particle names ending in -on come from english, which doesn't give or use a declension. Third declension assumed from romance usage of english term (cf. italian, french, spanish with plural -nes). Neuter however is used from various non romance sources that take all particles to be neuter. Berard uses latinized version of modern greek names (electronium instead of electron) but that is confusing (not replicated by others) since electronium, protonium, etc. are also physics terms for different materials meaning distinctly different thing. Electron, -onis neutr. is the most conservative/non committal thing to do as our physicist predecessors who started translating particle names seem to have also thought. Worse is having two systems in use.--173.208.45.218 11:53, 5 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, very helpful comment. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:13, 5 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary says the (apparently English, not New Latin) suffix -on in electron (meaning 'subatomic particle, unit, basic hereditary component') is from the -on in the word ion, so howsoever the Latin term ion declines should presumably be the way Latin electron and similarly formed words will decline. Merriam-Webster says this -on differs from the genuinely New Latin -on (meaning 'noble gas'), which comes from argon and is found in radon and such words. So: two identical-looking suffixes have distinct etymologies and therefore don't necessarily decline the same way. IacobusAmor 12:40, 5 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)

Quia suffix -on hic evidenter pars verbis est, quae sensum habet, neque ulla particula, quae declinatione amitti possit, ego potius "electrona" preferam ac vobis commendo. Idem ut suffices -an/en/inum qui/quae? in Chemia adhibentur. Altera parte elektronium sine dubio est verbum graecum (ἤλεκτρον), talia verba (ergo proton quoque) in lingua latina habent declinationes proprias! Verbum tamen ἰών vel ἰόν participium est (quod est "iens" latine), certe latine coniugari potest ut neutrum. Teutonius (disputatio) 23:37, 9 Iulii 2012 (UTC)

the suffix -on in the modern sense of meaning 'particle' was wholly invented by George Johnston Stoney in 1894 in english in order to name the new particle electron. This term he invented from the latin term electrum (meaning 'amber') by substituting the greek neuter that corresponded to the latin -um in electrum in order to distinguish the particle electron from the material electrum. The term's derivation evidently has nothing to do with ion. Subsequently by analogy the scientists used the same suffix to name other particles such as the proton, the neutron etc. The -ium suffix in particle physics means other things, as you can verify by searching positronium and protonium and comparing these with positron and proton. I think the most conservative (least inventive) thing to do is to keep the nominative form the same electron and decline as a third declension neuter. So we have electron nom electronis gen. and electrona pl.. Moreover I think this fits the LRL pattern previously reported by a Vicipaedian in this forum some time back for ion: ionis iona (which doesn't follow the greek for some reason). --Rafaelgarcia (disputatio) 03:23, 10 Iulii 2012 (UTC)

My only scintilla of doubt is the shift from 2nd declension to 3rd declension. It is possible (and much commoner in Greek) to decline nom./acc. -on gen.sg. -i nom./acc.pl. -a, adopting the second declension, and that seems to be logical in this case, to judge by your exposition of the history of "electron". On the other hand, I agree with the comment above that Romance languages don't do it this way: if they have -on -ones (they don't have neuter gender any more) that is a kind of retrospective support for us to use -on -ona as a 3rd decl. neuter.

On your last sentence: "ion", if my information is correct, is a borrowing of the Greek participle, which declines as an adjective (third declension) in all three genders, but has a -t- in the stem, so the correct etymological forms would be ion iontis ionta. I expect this has already been said in some other discussion ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:39, 10 Iulii 2012 (UTC)

Latin -um is a more latinized form of -on, both serving to merely mark neuter gender; but -on in electron has an entirely different meaning meaning 'particle' that is derived from the english usage. The question is whether to decline it, and if we decline it, how? keeping it in neuter the choices it seems are :

(0) electron in all forms

(1) electron electri electra (confused with electrum in all forms except accusative and nom singular)

(2) electron electronis electrona

(3) electron electrontis electronta

(4) electronium electronii electronia (pattern used in modern greek; there is no greek wikipedia entry for positronium (a particle made of an electron and positron orbiting each other)

Compare:

(0) neutron all forms

(1) neutron neutri neutra (confused with the adjective neutrum in all forms except the nominative singular which is used extensively to mark the charge of many particles)

(2) neutron neutronis neutrona

(3) neutron neutrontis neutronta

(4) neutronium neutronii neutronia (neutronium is not a particle, but matter made of neutrons, interestingly they don't have a page for this on the greek wiki)

Compare:

(0) proton all forms

(1) proton proti prota

(2) proton protonis protona

(3) proton protontis protonta (I think it is ugly as hell in the plural)

(4) protonium protonii protonia (protonium is a particle made of a proton and antiproton orbiting each other, not delt with on Greek wikipedia)

If you notice the only one that doesn't meet with some kind of objection from me is (2) which is the one we already use.--118.169.179.226 11:26, 10 Iulii 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I notice that! (3) and (4) have little in their favour, and we ought to be able to do better than (0). I would be over the moon if an external source could be found that uses (2) already, but, even if not, I think you're right: for clarity and for convenience sake it's best to continue to use (2).

If I seem to be dismissing cavalierly the argument for using (3) because that is the correct declension for ion (I have now found the earlier discussion incidentally), well, I think there is reason to dismiss it. In Greek that stem form is typical of present participles and nothing else, and we aren't making present participles here. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:43, 10 Iulii 2012 (UTC)

Ita profecto etiam apud verbum "hormon,-(t)is" eandem difficultatem iam antea (alicubi) habui. Hormonta esset rectissima declinatio, fortasse, hormona quidem aptissima, ut reor. Partem verbi -on enim a graeca sumtam esse constat! Elektron est idem ac ἤλεκτpov! Suffix -on non est inventio, sed translatio illius usus in alia verba nova. In verbis ut neutr+on, posi(t)tr+on... habemus imitationes illius verbi graeci. Alicubi legi succinum usui fuisse illi inventioni electricitatis!? Idpropter verbum ἤλεκτpov sumpseri(n)t ad rem novam dicendam. Teutonius (disputatio) 12:47, 10 Iulii 2012 (UTC)

1. Recte dicis amice quod Anglicum "electron" translitteratione Latina coincidit nominis Graeci "ἤλεκτpov" sed difficultas quam habeo est quod ἤλεκτpov in Latinum more Romano versum est "electrum", et non "electron"; suffixum Anglicum autem -on quod Stoney instroduxit significat particulam sensu corpusculi physico; et in usu demonstratur quod suffixum novum esse quia applicatur ad multa alia nomina.

2. Quidem inveniuntur extra Vicipaediam multae attestationes harum formarum: ion ionis iona et hormon hormonis hormona, specialiter ex Lexico LRL (secundum situm interretiale Morgan); quod demonstrant mihi hanc formam certe non esse malam. Concurro tibi aptius est -nis quam -ntis hic; et censeo -suffixum -ntis rectius esse pro Graecis nominibus sed non necessario pro Latinis. --66.171.178.34 19:41, 16 Iulii 2012 (UTC)

Usori 118.169.179.226 paene assentior de declinandis electrone, neutrone, protone secundum (2) [vide supra]. Hoc unum tamen demiror: qua de causa cogitandum sit has res neutrius generis esse? Omnia nomina, quae ab auctoribus antiquis secundum -on, -onis declinabantur, masculini generis sunt. Quae cum ita sint, timeo, ne inconsequenter agat, qui *electrona, neutrona, protona dicere aut scribere velit. Itaque suadeo, ut electron, -onis pl. electrones (masc.); neutron, -onis pl. neutrones (masc.); proton, -onis pl. protones (masc.) declinetur. Ita si faciamus, etiam fontem extra Vicipaedianum fide dignum habeamus (dico lexicon Vilborgianum sive Ebbe Vilborg, Norstedts svensk-latinska ordbok, 2009.). Neander (disputatio) 23:32, 16 Iulii 2012 (UTC)

Hac declinatione, si nomina masculini generis ita habeamus, assentiar egomet; Nomina mihi videbantur neutri generis fuisse propterea quod ita haec nomina apud fontes interretiales (dubios?) semper inveni, et quod electrum et electron neutri generis sunt; nihilominus apud linguas Romanicas masculini generis et pluralis -ones semper invenitur, ut declinatio masculina bene deceat apud nos; qua propter si fontem extra Vicipaediam habemus non possum negare hanc solutionem bonam esse. --66.171.178.34 06:49, 17 Iulii 2012 (UTC)