Disputatio:Televistrum

The word televistrum is suggested by Tuomo Pekkanen --Grufo (disputatio) 14:11, 12 Iulii 2015 (UTC)

Could someone—perhaps one of our northern European friends with an appropriate lexicon handy—quote Pekkanen directly, so the argument doesn't rely on Edwards's allegation. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:42, 12 Iulii 2015 (UTC)

Lexicon hodiernae Latinitatis Finno-Latino-Finnicum by Tuomo Pekkanen & Reijo Pitkäranta (2006) has televisorium and televistrum. Neander (disputatio) 16:48, 12 Iulii 2015 (UTC)

As in rasum (< rado) + -trum > rastrum, here we would have visum (< video) + -trum > vistrum. Televisorium would be possible in theory, but would be perceived as less classical. Moreover, the problem of televisorium is that we could keep the adjective televisorius as "of the televistrum", as gladiatorius means "of the gladiator(es)". I would always follow this pattern:

• nouns: arator, aratrix, aratrum; adj: aratorius -a -um
• nouns: rasor (an improbable "cutter man"), rastrix (an improbable "cutter woman"), rastrum (a "cutter object"); adj: rasorius -a -um (of the cutter stuff – this word brought to the italian rasoio)
• etc.

The rule is: -tus > -tor (-toris), -trix (-tricis), -trum (-tri); but: -sus > -sor (-soris), -strix (-stricis), -strum (-stri). --Grufo (disputatio) 14:11, 12 Iulii 2015 (UTC)

I wrote (instrumentum) televisorium for enphasizing the possible function of adjective of televisorius, -a, -um (until we ourselves don't destroy this possibility). See: Disputatio:Televisio

In the definition, I've added two sources from Egger via Morgan's list, but instrumentum televisificum could become a third lemma if one were wanted. The weight of the evidence—two dictionaries (one European, one North American) to one—still favors televisorium as the first lemma (despite the title), but I haven't changed the title since consensus hasn't been reached and more discussion is needed. ¶ The text (with the footnotes omitted) doesn't yet have enough characters or "aliquid maius" to qualify as a stipula. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:35, 12 Iulii 2015 (UTC)

The point is that we should stop thinking about latin as an abstract and static language. It evolved during time. If the TV set had been inventend before the 1st century BC it would have been probably called televistrum, if it had been invented in the 4rd century AD it would have been probably called (instrumentum) televisorium, since the suffix -rum would gradually lose its productivity. So, an important question regarding our sources is: which latin do they speak? And which latin do we want? --Grufo (disputatio) 18:43, 12 Iulii 2015 (UTC)

Separate articles

Surely Television (a process or medium) and Television set (an object) should be separate articles? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:23, 15 Iulii 2016 (UTC)