Salve, Wimpus!

Gratus aut grata in Vicipaediam Latinam acciperis! Ob contributa tua gratias agimus speramusque te delectari posse et manere velle.

Cum Vicipaedia nostra parva humilisque sit, paucae et exiguae sunt paginae auxilii, a quibus hortamur te ut incipias:

Si plura de moribus et institutis Vicipaedianis scire vis, tibi suademus, roges in nostra Taberna, vel roges unum ex magistratibus directe.

In paginis encyclopaedicis mos noster non est nomen dare, sed in paginis disputationis memento editis tuis nomen subscribere, litteris impressis --~~~~, quibus insertis nomen tuum et dies apparebit. Quamquam vero in paginis ipsis nisi lingua Latina uti non licet, in paginis disputationum qualibet lingua scribi solet. Quodsi quid interrogare velis, vel Taberna vel pagina disputationis mea tibi patebit. Ave! Spero te "Vicipaedianum" aut "Vicipaedianam" fieri velle!Jondel (disputatio) 08:14, 12 Septembris 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Latinitas recensere

This hardly needs saying ... but your corrections are very welcome. Go on doing this! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:51, 12 Septembris 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No thanks, Wimpus (disputatio) 14:10, 12 Septembris 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome recensere

Exoptatus ad Vicipaediam Latinam Wimpe. :) Si adiumentum alicui requiris vel aliquid loquendum, librum senti cum aliis Vicipaediae Latinae in paginis disputationis sive in taberna communicare. Nisi scis quomodo tabernam invenis, nexus est in pagina prima, et etiam scribere potes "Vicipaedia:Taberna" in "Quaerere" (search Anglice). In hac taberna disputamus, non edere, bibere, nec emere. :)

Nota; praeter linguam latinam probare, etiam tu adiuvas linguam supervivere. :)

Donatello (disputatio) 16:17, 12 Septembris 2013 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Systema endocrines recensere

Please respond, if you want, to my comment at this link: Disputatio:Systema endocrines. I'm really not sure what is the best answer for us :) Two other comments:

  1. If you move a page, please don't change any associated category name until the category itself has been moved. Otherwise, people using categories can't find the page.
  2. If you move a page -- unless the old name was an obvious mistake -- you should cite a source for the new name, in a footnote on the page. If you find a good source that contradicts your new name (as with Terminologia histologica here) it's normally best to mention both names on the page, and cite sources for both. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:37, 13 Septembris 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nice to see you ... recensere

... again! I commented, belatedly, at Disputatio Categoriae:Genera monotypica. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:47, 2 Octobris 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Enteroctopus dofleini recensere

Ave Wimpe. :) Quaeso adiuva apud paginam disputationis commentationis Enteroctopodis dofleini. -- Donatello (disputatio) 11:21, 20 Octobris 2013 (UTC).Reply[reply]

About the ending "-oides" in plural recensere

Greetings Wimpus. :) About the ending "-oides" from Greek derived words in Latin nouns: there was some time ago a discussion about androides in "Disputatio:Androides" in the section "Est 'androidis' Latine?" where we came to the plural "-oidea" of these nouns. But you might be right with "-oides" and also with "gynaecoides". But before you changed these words, I would recommend that you add your knowledge in that discussion. It might be easier for us concerning the words of "-oides" in plural and the "gynaecoides" who participated or read that discussion. :)

On the other hand, the "-oides" as "-oides" in plural becomes more structured and easier for people, because it would follow the plural pattern of the masuline and feminine words of the third declension.

Donatello (disputatio) 03:52, 4 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors! recensere

please help translate this message into the local language
  The Cure Award
In 2013 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you so much for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date medical information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do!

We are wondering about the educational background of our top medical editors. Would you please complete a quick 5-question survey? (please only fill this out if you received the award)

Thanks again :) --Ocaasi, Doc James and the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation

Congratulations, Wimpus! Your work on Latin terminology is much appreciated! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:59, 9 Iulii 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ligamentum decussatum anterius Medical correction recensere

Your improvements are appreciated. The sources would be needed. I will try to search them and add them. Cruciatum seems to be more familiar to medical people although as you say it, associateed with torture.--Jondel (disputatio) 00:35, 9 Iulii 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Medical correction recensere

Your improvements are appreciated. The sources would be needed. I will try to search them and add them. Cruciatum seems to be more familiar to medical people although as you say it, associateed with torture.--Jondel (disputatio) 00:35, 9 Iulii 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Jondel, I have added one source (I am partially disabled in copying my references while using my iPad). You can read about the confusion concerning to torture and and to crucify with to cross on the English wikipedia cruciate ligament I've wrote. i've checked multiple editions of the Nomina Anatomica and the Ienaiensia Nomina Anatomica is quite clear in replacing this barbaric term. However, other editions neglected this issue (although a footnote explained that some member suggested to use ligamentum decussatum instead). With kinds regards, Wimpus (disputatio) 00:49, 9 Iulii 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wimpus, I just came from there. Nice catch! Pardon me if I am brusque using this/these term/terms, but if I don't, things stagnate. No one else seems to want to write them.(but of course they do, still everyone has little time.)--Jondel (disputatio) 00:53, 9 Iulii 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Within anatomy, it is quite common to use ligamenta cruciata as most of the anatomists are not aware that they are referring to tortured or crucified ligaments. So, it might be useful to retain this akward term. Thanks and with kind regards, Wimpus (disputatio) 01:00, 9 Iulii 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your welcome. --Jondel (disputatio) 01:03, 9 Iulii 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Babae! Fons optima est!--Jondel (disputatio) 00:42, 9 Iulii 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am very glad that you have found a better, well sourced, term. The word "cruciatum" made me uncomfortable (if I can put it like that), but, being no scientist, I was happy enough to have found a Latin phrase at all, and did not have time to look further. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:57, 9 Iulii 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The last (Terminologia Anatomica) (1998) and the first edition (Basiliensia Nomina Anatomica) (1895) of the official Latin anatomic nomenclature are available online. The editions that were ratified in 1935, 1955, 1961, 1966, 1977, 1983 and 1989 are not full text available online (as far as I know). However, I 'collect' these printed editions. Only the edition ratified in 1961 is missing on my shelves (and actually three of the four slightly different editions of the one that was ratified in 1935). The edition of 1935 corrected many mistakes in grammar and orthography of the preceding edition of 1895. However, the editions from 1955 on, were devised by anatomists with different points of viewsconcerning Latinitas as in the prefaces of these editions (and in related articles) it is stated:
"The more the Latin terms can be made to resemble its vernacular equivalent, the easier it is to guess the significance of the Latin term"
"Pedantic insistence on anulus for annulus (despite the familiar annular and annulaire)......are a few examples of misplaced scholastic zeal."
"The use of genitives cannot be entirely avoided, but the '-orums', '-arums', '-iums' and '-uums' are scarcely encouraging to the non-Latinist!"
"The I.A.N.C. has repeatedly declared pedantry anathema".
"All diphthongs should be eliminated".
Some terms in some editions of the Nomina Anatomica/Terminologia Anatomica are dubious at least, like glandula thyroidea = doorlike gland (English: thyroid gland) instead of glandula thyreoidea/thyreoidica = shieldlike gland (German: Schilddrüse not Türdrüse), omphalocoelia = belly button-abdomen instead of omphalocele = umbilical hernia (confusion of Greek κοιλία and κήλη), choroidea (=dancelike) instead of chorioides (=like a membrane (that encloses the foetus)). So, in those cases I prefer to select the more Latinate forms as attested in the 1935 edition of the Nomina Anatomica. However I also make use of the 1910 edition of Triepel (also with the name Nomina Anatomica), but not ratified by a larger committee of anatomists. Some of his suggestions were incorporated in the 1935 edition, but many not (although preferable from a linguistic point of view). In case you might have a question concerning the official anatomic nomenclature, please post a request on this page and will be grateful if I can be of any assistence. With kind regards, Wimpus (disputatio) 12:16, 9 Iulii 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Beyond anatomy ... recensere

Do you have any comment on the pagename Ictus (circulatorius), or can you suggest the best Latin source to use for names of illnesses?

Thanks in any case for the very interesting details above. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:32, 9 Iulii 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Andrew, I am not well versed in nosology :( When trying to determine names of diseases that are coined during the last fifty years, I am primarily using medical dictionaries that are not available online (as far as I know) for free. Although Dorland's medical dictionary (2000) is an American English dictionary, it does contain some names of illnessess in Latin. However, I am aware that they anglicize in some cases the spelling of the Latin nomenclature (meralgia paresthetica instead of meralgia paraesthetica [diphthong!]). In addition, I use dictionaries from other languages like for example Dutch (I am Dutch) (such as Pinkhof Geneeskundig woordenboek, that writes meralgia paraesthetica) or German. As I am familiar with those dictionaries, I feel less the urge to use an online medical dictionary of unknow provenance. And using only one source can be limited as it might use some barbaric orthography.
The International Classification of Diseases, version 10 (ICD10) is however available online. Some names are also rendered in Latin. Please be aware, that some English expressions are translated to Latin in the German and Dutch 'translations' of the ICD10. In some cases the 'barbaric' Latin of the English ICD10 is modified in one of its translated versions. The German translation of the ICD10 correctly writes erythema anulare while the original English version writes erythema annulare (classical Latin dictates anulare instead of annulare). So in case you encounter an expression with some odd orthography, you might want to check those translations to find the correct spelling.
For names of diseases that were coined a long time ago, I can make use of a few interesting medical dictionaries that are available online, Kraus' (1844) Kritisch-etymologisches medicinisches Lexikon and Foster's (1891) An illustrated medical dictionary. Being a dictionary of the technical terms used by writers on medicine and the collateral sciences, in the Latin, English, French, and German languages. When trying to translate shock were faced with some difficulty as this word is not composed of Greek and of Latin roots and comparable Germanic words can be found in other European languages. In those cases, I check the Modern Greek wikipedia and find Καταπληξία. I know we have discussed with multiple editors that Modern Greek is not imperative for making compounds in Latin, it might give you some direction where to look for. In Kraus (1844) we find the similar medical term cataplexis in a sense that is too broad das Erschrecken, das Zusammenfahren, and not clearly with the more modern medical meaning of circulatory shock. In Foster (1891) the term shock is used with a description that is more akin to what is actually meant. It is translated in Foster (1891)as collisus in Latin (Lewis & Short translate collisio with shock) and as σύγκρουσις in (ancient?) Greek (translated as collision in Liddell & Scott). Whether collisus can still be aplied to circulatory shock and is used in more recent dictionaries I have to check in some multilingual medical dictionaries. With kind regards, Wimpus (disputatio) 13:59, 10 Iulii 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The OED derives English shock from French choc and choquer, and says the original English use of the word was military, defined thus: 'the encounter of an armed force with the enemy in a charge or onset; also, the encounter of two mounted warriors or jousters charging one another'. (This sense may inhere in the Pentagon's shock and awe.) The closest one-word rendering of that might indeed be collision, for which Latin concursus tooks good, though it might seem strange in the medical sense. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:59, 28 Iulii 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had not considered concursus yet. Concursus is the (Neo?-)Latin rendering[1][2] of ancient Greek συνδρομή (syndroma[3][4][5] or syndrome [1][2]). So my personal preference would not be to use this word as it can be considered a synonym of συνδρομή in medical Latin.
It seems that the description used in Dorland's medical dictionary for shock[6][7][8] and Pinkhof Geneeskundig woordenboek[9] is comparable to the definition of shock in Foster's medical dictionary.[10] that used the synonyms collisus and σύγκρουσις. Moreover, shock seems to used synonymously with circulatory shock. Please notice, that small differences exist and later works may use more fine-grained classifications. These aforementioned dictionaries have also other meanings for the term shock when it is not joined by a specifying adjective.
Synonyms in modern langugues for circulatory shock derived from Latin collapsus exist as English collapse [6][11] and circulatory collapse,[7][12][8] French collapsus circulatoire,[11][12] Spanish colapso circulatorio,[11] German Kreislaufkollaps [11] and Dutch circulatoire collaps.[9] In medical Latin I can find collapsus,[10][13][14][15]. There are however slight differences in definition. There are however different sorts of collapses, like in Latin the collapsus pulmonum,[13][16] in English the collapse of vertebrae,[12] the collapse of aneurysmal sac [12] and in Dutch vasovagale collaps,[9] precollaps,[9] cardiovagale collaps,[9] venencollaps.[9] The name circulatory collapse can be defined two-fold; 1. A collapse of the circulatory system or 2. collapse (in the sense of collapsus corporis, attested in Castelli[1]) due to a failing of the circulatory system. So, it seems advisable to use a specifying adjective or genitive. On Google collapsus circulatorius can be found, although not in sources I am familiar with. With kind regards, Wimpus (disputatio) 14:07, 28 Iulii 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In addition, English wikipedia includes ICD10 Shock, unspecified (code R57) that includes code R57.9, Shock, unspecified-Failure of peripheral circulation NOS what is called "Schock, nicht näher bezeichnet" but also Kardiovaskulärer Kollaps in the German translation of ICD10. And collapsus cardio-vasculaire in French is the same (according to some[12]) as a circulatory shock. With kind regards, Wimpus (disputatio) 14:37, 28 Iulii 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References recensere

  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 Castelli, B. & Bruno, J.P (1713). Lexicon medicum Graeco-Latinum. Leipzig: F. Thomas
  2. 2.0 2.1 Kraus, L.A. (1844). Kritisch-etymologisches medicinisches Lexikon (Dritte Auflage). Göttingen: Verlag der Deuerlich- und Dieterichschen Buchhandlung.
  3. International Anatomical Nomenclature Committee (1977). Nomina Embryologica.’’ Amsterdam-Oxford: Excerpta Medica.
  4. International Anatomical Nomenclature Committee (1983). Nomina Embryologica and Nomina.’’ Baltimore/London: Williams & Wilkins
  5. International Anatomical Nomenclature Committee (1989). Nomina Embryologica.’’ Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone.
  6. 6.0 6.1 Dorland, W.A.N. & Miller, E.C.L. (1948). ‘’The American illustrated medical dictionary.’’ (21st edition). Philadelphia/London: W.B. Saunders Company.
  7. 7.0 7.1 Taylor, E.J. (1988). Dorland’s illustrated medical dictionary (27th edition). Philadelphia/London/Toronto/Montreal/Sydney/Tokyo: W.B. Saunders Company.
  8. 8.0 8.1 Anderson, D.M. (2000). Dorland’s illustrated medical dictionary (29th edition). Philadelphia/London/Toronto/Montreal/Sydney/Tokyo: W.B. Saunders Company.
  9. 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 Everdingen, J.J.E. van, Eerenbeemt, A.M.M. van den (2012). Pinkhof Geneeskundig woordenboek (12de druk). Houten: Bohn Stafleu Van Loghum.
  10. 10.0 10.1 Foster, F.D. (1891-1893). An illustrated medical dictionary. Being a dictionary of the technical terms used by writers on medicine and the collateral sciences, in the Latin, English, French, and German languages. New York: D. Appleton and Company.
  11. 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 Sliosberg, A. (1975). Elsevier’s medical dictionary in five languages. English/American / French / Italian / Spanish and German. (2nd edition). Amsterdam/Oxford/New York: Elsevier’s Scientific Publishing Company.
  12. 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 Gladstone, W.J. & Roche, P. (1990). ‘’Dictionnaire anglais-français des sciences médicales et paramédicales/English-French dictionary of medical and paramedical sciences.’’ (3rd edition). Québec: Edisem/Paris: Maloine.
  13. 13.0 13.1 Roth, O., & Gessler, H. (1897). Klinische terminologie (5. Auflage). Leipzig: Verlag von Arthur Georgi.
  14. Haan, H.R.M. de & Dekker, W.A.L. (1955-1957). Groot woordenboek der geneeskunde. Encyclopaedia medica. Leiden: L. Stafleu.
  15. Arnaudov, G.D. (1964). Terminologia medica polyglotta. Latinum-Bulgarski-Russkij-English-Français-Deutsch. Sofia: Editio medicina et physcultura.
  16. Pinkhof, H. (1923). Vertalend en verklarend woordenboek van uitheemsche geneeskundige termen. Haarlem: De Erven F. Bohn.

Andromeda recensere

Hi, Wimpus. Of course you were right about "galaxias", but I moved the page again, because Andromeda is not the name of that galaxy but of the constellation in which it is seen. I found that "Nebula Andromedae" is easily traced as a common Latin name, so I used that. I added to the page the official designation, "M31" or "Messier 31". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:38, 28 Iulii 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Planeta recensere

I want to explain what I did there. We need to simplify our first sentences where we can, so it is not a good thing to add more alternative terms to first sentences if those alternatives are rarely used and not recommended to readers. That seems to be the case with the variants planetis, planes, planetis, planetes They are so rare, I think, that dictionaries disagree about parsing them!

If we want to cite these forms (which is fine) it is best either to put them in footnotes, or to have a section of the article headed "nomina" or "etymologia" and to put them there.

I did not realise at first that you had added so much material today: if I had understood that, I would have waited longer. But I guess I would still have done the same thing :) Modern dictionaries are handy as collections of information, but in the case of a rare form it may be better to cite a classical source directly. In this case, "planetes" is used by Aulus Gellius, who also suggests "stellae erraticae". Well, it's interesting, but he's a lexicography freak, so his stuff can be reduced entirely to footnotes. Who uses "planes" I don't know, but when we find it I think it, too, could go in a footnote. The interesting terms for most readers, I think, are "planeta" and "stella errans", and we had no citations for the latter, so I added a couple.

Tell me what you think about this! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:44, 3 Augusti 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Addendum: Looking at the Oxford Latin Dictionary I now think that "planes" is a tentative extrapolation, by modern lexicographers, from Gellius's "planetes" No one really uses the singular form, and only Gellius knows whether it existed in his internal grammar. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:58, 3 Augusti 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear Andrew, I am not a astronomer, or familiar with astronomic writings in classical Latin. So, my addition was merely based on the dictionary entries I encountered.. So, thank you for specifying this. With kind regards, Wimpus (disputatio) 09:25, 7 Augusti 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Leukaemia spelling recensere

Hi! I'm interested in the spelling of the medical term "leukemia" and been advised to ask you. In the latin article I found it as leuchaemia, but on the web it's usually spelled as "leukaemia". Which one is correct? I'm asking because i want to spell it corrrectly in the medical articles on other wikis. Regards: --Kohlins (disputatio) 12:40, 10 Augusti 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear, Kohlins, I am on holiday right now, but will be back on saterday. Based on the Greek derivation from leukos and haima, the form leuchaemia (in Latin) would be preferred. I have a few sources that explicitely prefer leuchaemia and disapprove of leukaemia or leucaemia. I can check these sources when I get back and can give you a more extensive answer. But please be aware, that numerous leading medical dictionaries still prefer leukaemia and/or leucaemia, despite the 'fact' that Virchow erred, as the corrupted form is more common. With kind regards, Wimpus (disputatio) 21:35, 12 Augusti 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear Kohlins, are you the same Kohlins as the Kohlins on the Hungarian wikipedia page? I saw that you've added a lot of Latin names for diseases. Well done! Do you use a specific source, or do you translate specific terms to Latin? A few terms in medical Latin are utter non-sense. I can spot on the Hungarian wikipedia such terms like lymphaticus = frantic, insane, panic-struck (and not 'related to lymph'), thyroideus = doorlike (and not 'shield-like') or choroideus (dancelike, not 'like a membrane (that encloses the fetus'). These terms are actually approved by international official committees. With kind regards, Wimpus (disputatio) 22:26, 12 Augusti 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear Kohlins. I'll try to give you an answer. I have translittered the Greek words I am using in the piece I have written below with the original Greek from between ( ).
The word leuchaemia, leucaemia or leukaemia is not attested in classical Latin. In medical Latin the spellings leuchaemia,[1][2][3][4][5][6] leucaemia,[4][7][5][8][9] leukaemia,[5] leukemia [10] and leucohaemia [5] are attested. Also the medical Latin word leucocythaemia,[7][5][8], introduced by Bennett[11] was used to denote leuchaemia.
Rudolf Virchow introduced in 1847 for the first time the terminus technicus Leukämie in German.[11] He derived[12][13] this compound noun from Ancient Greek leukós (λευκός), "white" [14] and haima (αἷμα), "blood".[14] It can be translated as white blood[15] or white-bloodedness.[12] In German the synonym Weissblütigkeit [2][10] is also used.
The Greek k (κ, kappa) can be converted to German k or c, with the first one more common, although Leucämie [16] can also be found in German. For Greek k (κ), the Romans used most of the time the letter c.[6] The letter k is quite uncommon in classical Latin, with approximately 10 words in existence containing the letter k.[17] German A-Umlaut (=ä) actually denotes/corresponds to the Latin diphthong –ae, that corresponds to the Greek diphthong ai (αι).[6] The German ending –ie corresponds in this case to Greek -ia (-ια) or Latin –ia.
The coinage of Virchow seems to neglect the general rule in Ancient Greek that when a k (κ) and h (actually a spiritus asper) collide, they form a new letter, i.e. the Greek letter chi (χ) ,[18], usually translitterated by the Romans with ch. The last consonant of the first word, i.e. the k of leukos, and the h of haima should being converted to the letter chi.[18] A few sources explicitely mention this mistake.[19][6][18] The predecessor of today's International Classification of Diseases (ICD10) from 1910 explicitely states concerning the spelling leuchaemia "We believe that no other spelling is defensible".[19] However in German, the form leuchämie [3] can also be found. In Modern Greek it is also written as leuchaimia (λευχαιμἰα) [20][21] This seems mounting evidence for writing leuchaemia.
There are few other consonants that forms new letters with the Greek h. The Greek t (τ, tau) forms with the Greek h, the Greek letter theta (θ), translittered by the Romans as th. And the Greek p (π, pi) preceding the Greek h forms the Greek letter phi (φ), usually translitterated by the Romans as ph. Medical Latin uses polycythaemia [9] (t of kutos (κύτος) merges with the h of haima) and aphaemia [9] (p of apo (ἀπό) merges with the h of haima).
This merge from the Greek h with the preceding letter into a new letter containing the h (in translitteration) can only occure for k+h=ch (κ+´=χ) , t+h = th (τ+´=θ) and p+h=ph (π+´=φ). In medical Latin anaemia [9] (Ancient Greek: ἀναιμία) no h precedes -aemia as the Greek n (ν) and h can not merge into a different letter. In that case the h is 'left out'.
In medical Latin the compound of leukos (λευκός) and haimorrhois (αἱμορροΐς) is also written as ‘’leuchaemorrhois’’. [22][7], although the incorrect spelling leucaemorrhois [5] also exists. It can be possible that the writers of the incorrect forms that left out the h are misled by the form anaemia that is lacking the h.
It seems that leuchaemia is the least barbaric. Both the form leucaemia and leukaemia seems to neglect the general rules of Greek morphology. Moreover leukaemia is displaying a k that is quite rare in classical Latin. Unfortunately, the k is used in medical Latin too often. However, the form leuchaemia is quite rare in medical Latin from the 20th and 21st century. Some people would therefore choose to use leucaemia instead. In addition, full expressions like leucaemia myeloica [23] can not be found easily with the orthography leuchaemia (but please check this source). However, I am biased to use leuchaemia as it less barbaric, but I would advocate that you would explain your usage in the text of the article and/or use scientific sources for the attestation of the specific form. With kind regards, Wimpus (disputatio) 17:36, 16 Augusti 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Explicatio mirabilis! Lesgles (disputatio) 17:30, 18 Augusti 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notae recensere

  1. Richter, H.E. (1853).Grundriss der inneren Klinik für Akademische Vorlesungen und zum Selbstudium. (2. Auflage). Leipzig: Leopold Voss.
  2. 2.0 2.1 Richter, H.E. (1860).Grundriss der inneren Klinik für Akademische Vorlesungen und zum Selbstudium. Erster band: Anigiopathien, Neuropathien. (4. Auflage). Leipzig: Leopold Voss.
  3. 3.0 3.1 Knebusch, T. (1866). Vollständiges Taschenbuch bewährter Heilmethoden und Heilformeln für inere Krankheiten. (2. Auflage). Erlangen: Verlag Ferdinand Enke.
  4. 4.0 4.1 Wehr, F.(1867). De leuchaemia. Dissertatio inauguralis. Bonn: Carl George.
  5. 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 Foster, F.D. (1891-1893). An illustrated medical dictionary. Being a dictionary of the technical terms used by writers on medicine and the collateral sciences, in the Latin, English, French, and German languages. New York: D. Appleton and Company.
  6. 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 Kossmann, R. (1903). Allgemeine Gynaecologie. Berlin: Verlag von August Hirschwald.
  7. 7.0 7.1 7.2 Gabler, E. & Winkler, T.C. (1881). Latijnsch-Hollandsch woordenboek over de geneeskunde en de natuurkundige wetenschappen. (Tweede druk). Leiden: A.W. Sijthoff.
  8. 8.0 8.1 Pinkhof, H. (1923). Vertalend en verklarend woordenboek van uitheemsche geneeskundige termen. Haarlem: De Erven F. Bohn.
  9. 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 Everdingen, J.J.E. van, Eerenbeemt, A.M.M. van den (2012). Pinkhof Geneeskundig woordenboek (12de druk). Houten: Bohn Stafleu Van Loghum.
  10. 10.0 10.1 Sliosberg, A. (1975). Elsevier’s medical dictionary in five languages. English/American / French / Italian / Spanish and German. (2nd Edition). Amsterdam/Oxford/New York: Elsevier’s Scientific Publishing Company.
  11. 11.0 11.1 Kampen, K.R. (2011). The discovery and early understanding of leukemia. Leukemia Research 36, 6-13.
  12. 12.0 12.1 Klein, E. (1971). A comprehensive etymological dictionary of the English language. Dealing with the origin of words and their sense development thus illustration the history of civilization and culture. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science B.V.
  13. Veen, P.A.F. van, Sijs, N. van der (1997). Etymologisch woordenboek. De herkomst van onze woorden.’’ Utrecht/Antwerpen: Van Dale Lexicografie.
  14. 14.0 14.1 Liddell, H.G. & Scott, R. (1940). A Greek-English Lexicon. revised and augmented throughout by Sir Henry Stuart Jones. with the assistance of. Roderick McKenzie. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  15. Roth, O., & Gessler, H. (1897). Klinische terminologie (5. Auflage). Leipzig: Verlag von Arthur Georgi.
  16. Gabler, E. (1857). Lateinisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch für Medicin und Naturwissenschaften. Berlin: Verlag Hermann Peters.
  17. Lewis, C.T. & Short, C. (1879). A Latin dictionary founded on Andrews' edition of Freund's Latin dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  18. 18.0 18.1 18.2 Kluyver, A. (1923). Eenige opmerkingen over termen in de geneeskunde. In H. Pinkhof. Vertalend en verklarend woordenboek van uitheemsche geneeskundige termen’’ (pp. VII-XV). Haarlem: De Erven F. Bohn.
  19. 19.0 19.1 International Commission (1910). International classification of causes of sickness and death. Washington: Government Printing Office.
  20. Divry, G.C. (red.) (1982). Divry’s modern English-Greek and Greek-English desk dictionary. New York: D.C. Divry. Inc., Publishers.
  21. Lindenburg, M.A. (1989). Woordenboek Nieuwgrieks-Nederlands. Delft: Eburon.
  22. Kraus, L.A. (1844). Kritisch-etymologisches medicinisches Lexikon (Dritte Auflage). Göttingen: Verlag der Deuerlich- und Dieterichschen Buchhandlung.
  23. Leflot-Soetemans, C. & Leflot, G. (1975). Standaard Geneeskundig woordboek Frans-Nederlands. Antwerpen-Amsterdam: Standaard Uitgeverij.

Tissue recensere

Hi Wimpus! Another biological puzzle for you. We currently have two articles, Textum (biologia) and Tela, for biological tissue. Do any of your sources indicate which (if either) of them is correct? Thanks, Lesgles (disputatio) 22:00, 25 Septembris 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In general contexts, caro might suffice, but of course a technical term may be available. Regarding the biological sense, White's, Cassell's, and Traupman don't help us. Maybe classical Latin just doesn't like to use a noun for this concept. Cassell's translates 'the thing is a tissue of falsehoods' as tota res e mandaciis constat and directs us to 'texture', where both nouns offered are marked poetic. ¶ This may be one of those words with regard to which the general dictionaries fail us; another is the set of senses seen in the English verbs 'feature, highlight, showcase'. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 23:57, 25 Septembris 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just my 2 cents. Caro seems more like flesh or meat, while tissue(latin, textum?) seems more like an organized collection of cells(to form an organ).Jondel (disputatio) 00:43, 26 Septembris 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps the problem here is that, as Merriam-Webster says, the BASIC meaning of tissue (in English) is 'a fine lightweight often sheer fabric', and senses having to do with meshes, networks, webs, aggregations of cells, and the like are all secondary and/or metaphorical. But Merriam-Webster says tissue fluid goes back to about 1916 (and tissue culture back to 1923), long enough ago that maybe good Latin terms for the secondary sense of tissue are available. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 01:15, 26 Septembris 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed with basic meaning (mesh, sense of fabric). Jondel (disputatio) 01:50, 26 Septembris 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear Lesgles and IacobusAmor, I'll try to check my sources. With kind regards, Wimpus (disputatio) 20:12, 28 Septembris 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

mesenterius/mesentericus recensere

Salve Wimpe,

mutavisti nuper paginas Arteria mesenterica superior et Arteria mesenterica inferior in Arteria mesenteria superior et Arteria mesenteria inferior. Fontem nominas Thiele (1908). Mihi haec mutatio infelix videtur. Primum priores formae in nomenclatura anatomica actuali fixae sunt et ab medicis nunc adhibentur. Secundum hae formae iam ante annum 1908 in usu erant. Mihi est liber anno 1851 editus [1], qui his formis utitur. Itaque mesentericus praefero. Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 22:40, 28 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bis-Taurino assentior, namque -entericus apud antiquos invenitur, sicut apud Plinium dysentericus, lientericus. Neander (disputatio) 04:34, 29 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

lumbaris / lumbalis recensere

Salve Wimpe,

etiam in nominis Arteria iliolumbaris sicut et Vertebra lumbaris mihi inadaequatum videtur, formam validae nomenclaturae anatomicae non praeferre, etsi alia forma antiquior esset. Lectores Vicipaediae primo loco nomina in scientia adhibita et non etymologiam eorum quaerient. Te saluto Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 22:51, 30 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your account will be renamed recensere

03:13, 18 Martii 2015 (UTC)

Nomen novum tributum est recensere

09:24, 19 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)

  1. Bock, C.E. Anatomisches Taschenbuch, 4. editio, Lipsiae (1851): Renger'sche Buchhandlung