Disputatio:Pumilio alba

Contribui

Textum e pagina Nana bianca [sic] contribui. An utilis sit, nescio! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:20, 15 Iunii 2009 (UTC)

Pumilio alba / Nana alba

• French: Naine blanche
• Italian: Nana bianca
• Spanish: Enana blanca
• Portuguese: Anã branca

Why is this page called “Pumilio alba” instead of “Nana alba”? --Grufo (disputatio) 10:19, 27 Martii 2023 (UTC)

Nescimus, sed etiam sunt commentarii de pumilionibus flavis et rubris. Etiam lege dictum Dalbianum supra. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 10:38, 27 Martii 2023 (UTC)

IacobusAmor dixit «sed etiam sunt commentarii de pumilionibus flavis et rubris»: But these pages are also called using a word derived from “nana” in French, Italian, Spanish and Portuguese! It looks to me that we should rename those as well. As for Andrew Dalby's words, I am not sure they express any opinion about what the correct title should be. I hope he will pass by and give us his two cents. --Grufo (disputatio) 11:04, 27 Martii 2023 (UTC)

I didn't seriously consider the name. There were simply two pages on the same topic: the best page was "Pumilio alba"; I merged the other page into this. It seems legitimate to translate the name. If no other modern Latin writer has done it before us, we should simply choose the best Latin term we can: I feel sure you both agree. Certainly the Romance-language terms present a useful model. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:06, 27 Martii 2023 (UTC)

Of course I agree with the principle! What term do you and other editors prefer then? And why? --Grufo (disputatio) 13:10, 27 Martii 2023 (UTC)

Here's a blog that (apparently independently of Vicipaedia) attests pumilio rubra. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:17, 27 Martii 2023 (UTC)

The likelihood that that blog copied the term from Vicipaedia is not negligible. Without reputable sources we might have ended up in a loop. We can then try with vocabularies; there we can see that according to Lewis&Short both pumilio and nanus can be extended to non-human entities, but only “nanus” is used for non-animated objects (e.g. “a low, shallow water-vessel”) – while “pumilio” is used only for animals. But a more extended research would be required --Grufo (disputatio) 14:46, 27 Martii 2023 (UTC)

I am no plant expert, but apparently dwarf plants are called “nanae” sometimes:

• White Dwarf Fan Columbine, a.k.a. “Nana Alba”
• Crape Myrtle, a.k.a. “Nana Rubra”

--Grufo (disputatio) 16:44, 27 Martii 2023 (UTC)

Other dwarf plants are called pumilio, as are certain animals and proteins and probably other things. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:21, 27 Martii 2023 (UTC)

Then I would say that the race has no winner. If for both of you it is OK, I would simply add “vel nana alba/rubra/flavia” to these pages as possible alternatives. --Grufo (disputatio) 17:37, 27 Martii 2023 (UTC)

It's not likely we'll follow that route. Our first sentences need to be simple and readable, and too many lemmata reduce these qualities. If I encounter a page that has two or more lemmata, both invented by Wikipedians, I normally delete one or put it in a footnote. The right way is to decide here: if no compelling argument and no consensus, no change. That's my view. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:20, 27 Martii 2023 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Addition: I just found a source for “nana rubra” (“tertia stella nana rubra, quae Proxima Centauri appellatur”)_{Vide meum commentum de malo fonte subter. --Grufo} --Grufo (disputatio) 18:42, 27 Martii 2023 (UTC)

I don't find the Planetario blog a persuasive source: I suspect, as Grufo does, that it isn't independent of Vicipaedia. (Nice to find occasional hints that we have an influence!) [Added afterwards: the Postposm page is hardly Latin: read carefully and you'll see. "Considerandum quod prehistory sicut tantum stella ..." "Telescopium cosmicum in pipelino est"?]

I don't find those plant names using "nana" cited by Grufo convincing as Latin, at least not yet -- who on earth invented them, and why? They surely don't have anything to do with botanical Latin.

I strongly favour "pumilio" for Vicipaedia. The arguments that persuade me are these:

1. "Nanus" is a Greek word, dubious in classical Latin (and we prefer to be guided by classical usage). Aulus Gellius (Noctes Atticae 16.7.10) discusses this synonymy, saying that "nanus" instead of "pumilio" was chosen by Laberius, writer of farces, and it was among numerous words of doubtful Latinity that he used.
2. "Nana", if that's proposed, isn't really classical Latin: first used by the anonymous/pseudonymous author of the Historia Augusta c. 390 AD.
3. "Pumilio" is certainly classical.
4. In its earliest recorded occurrence (Lucretius 4.1162) "pumilio" is used of a woman, accompanying a feminine adjective, so our use here is justified.
5. "Pumilio" is used already by Pliny (Natural History 17.176) in a scientific sense. The botanists who, long afterwards, began to use it as a species name (as cited by Iacobus) would certainly have been aware of Pliny's usage, and would have favoured the word for this reason. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:01, 27 Martii 2023 (UTC)

Andrew Dalby dixit «I don't find the Planetario blog a persuasive source: I suspect, as Grufo does, that it isn't independent of Vicipaedia»: Another argument against that blog is that in another article it uses “nana rubra”. My suspect is that it is a semi-automatically generated Latin translation – we should find out easily by checking the grammar, but it might be a futile excercise. «I strongly favour "pumilio" for Vicipaedia. The arguments that persuade me are these»: Yours are certainly good arguments, which convinced me that we should keep these pages as they are unless reputable sources suggest alternatives. The source I showed seems acceptable, but probably not enough for a change given your arguments. Addition I have to correct my own words, as that source has sentences like “Considerandum quod prehistory sicut tantum stella”. So no sources in either direction, but very good arguments from Andrew Dalby in favour of “pumilio”. --Grufo (disputatio) 19:23, 27 Martii 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I agree, of course, that all might change if we find a good modern scientific source for "nana alba" with this meaning. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:13, 28 Martii 2023 (UTC)

Secundum glossarium Georges 1913 vox nostra a Plinio Minore utique pro rebus, non solum pro bestiis, usurpatur! (Zwergplatanen, Zwergreben, kleines Wassergefäß...) - Giorno2 (disputatio) 19:44, 27 Martii 2023 (UTC)

«vox nostra a Plinio Minore utique pro rebus, non solum pro bestiis, usurpatur!»: Indeed! --Grufo (disputatio) 00:50, 28 Martii 2023 (UTC)

E disputatione nostra hoc mihi in mentem oritur: Iam iam difficilius testimonia de Latinitate e paginis interretialibus hodiernis extrahemus. Ambo situs privati (Planetario et Postposm) Latinitatem machinalem redolent. Quando verba Latina per Google quaerimus, subito plurimas tales paginas rperimus. Necesse erit aut paginas privatas "Latine" scriptas e censu excludere, aut curiosissime perlegere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:13, 28 Martii 2023 (UTC)

Ita, probe dicis, sed non omnia bloga ex machinis nascuntur. Hoc exemplum manifeste ex vera mente humana sine auxilio externo diu exoritur. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:56, 28 Martii 2023 (UTC)