Quantum redactiones paginae "Disputatio:Constellatio" differant
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
Linea 3:
::I agree. I have always been uncomfortable with our use of "sidus" for constellation: not incorrect, but ambiguous. <font face="Gill Sans">[[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew]]<font color="green">[[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby| Dalby]]</font></font> 09:15, 11 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
:::According to Cassell's, the basic & strict sense of ''sidus'' is 'a group of stars, a constellation'. Derived senses are 'a luminary heavenly body', 'the time of year', 'weather', (in astrology) 'a star', and (plural) 'the heavens'; and the transferred sense is 'any glorious or beautiful object'. ''Constellatio'' isn't in Cassell's, and may therefore be a nonclassical term. For that reason, and because the core sense of ''sidus'' is 'constellation', ''sidus'' looks better here. For 'asterism', we already have the article [[Asterismus]]. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 15:55, 11 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
::::For the record, ''constellatio'' is postclassical, but antique: it shows up as early as the fourth century. This would hardly be the first time we went with something less-than-Ciceronian in order to avoid ambiguity, especially when it comes to scientific terms with established Latin forms. --[[Usor:Iustinus|Iustinus]] 00:04, 11 Iulii 2010 (UTC)
| |||