Quantum redactiones paginae "Disputatio:Granitum (lapis)" differant

Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
Linea 15:
: I didn't use any source for the name, but knowing the etymology of 'granite' [http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=granite&searchmode=none], which can only correspond to the Latin 'granatum'. The CIL page does say 'granite' and not 'garnet'.
: In any case, I suppose we must use 'granites' if that is the accepted Latin name, although is is totally absurd historically, as 'granite' does not contain the suffix '-ite' (as the English pronunciation proves). [[Usor:Pantocrator|Pantocrator]] 04:55, 1 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
::You were right, of course, that "pomegranate" and "granite" have a cognate origin: they both "consist of grains". You're also right that neo-Latin ''granites'' seems to be an analogical form, derived from the name in modern languages and adding the typical -ites termination unhistorically: that's how I read the evidence, anyway. But, finally, you're ''also'' right that since it exists, we had better use it! <font face="Gill Sans">[[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew]]<font color="green">[[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby| Dalby]]</font></font> 09:02, 1 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
Revertere ad "Granitum (lapis)".