Quantum redactiones paginae "Disputatio:Granitum (lapis)" differant
Content deleted Content added
m movit Disputatio:Granatum (lapis) ad Disputatio:Granitum (lapis): vide disp, |
m bot: replace user signature per Special:LintErrors/obsolete-tag with user permission |
||
Linea 2:
''Granatum'' is the correct name here (it is from the adjective) but all mineral names in '-ite' are ''-ita'' (masculine) in Latin. This suffix comes from Greek ''-ites''. [http://cil.bbaw.de/cil_en/dateien/glossar_1_16-6.html The CIL index] is no help; its classicising requires 'lapis ...' which is too cumbersome for scientific use. Strangely, they have 'lapis basanites' and I'm not sure why you could put together two nouns in the nominative there. [[Usor:Pantocrator|Pantocrator]] 11:47, 30 Martii 2010 (UTC)
:<s>Many of these names come from Greek, and the -ites termination (the same that is optionally Latinised as -ita) is, I think, originally adjectival in Greek. At any rate it's used for both adjectives and nouns. So</s> ''Lapis basanites'' is a calque or loan-translation of Greek {{Polytonic|βασανίτης λίθος}}, <s>and can be taken as noun + agreeing adjective.</s> [Changed my mind here, but the following sentence explains the construction in Greek and Latin anyway:] Noun + noun "in apposition", both in the same case, is quite OK if one of them serves to identify the class into which the other falls: "Urbs Roma" is a well-known example.
::OK. I've been warned more than once about putting together nouns in the nominative, but I see what you mean here. [[Usor:Pantocrator|Pantocrator]] 13:34, 31 Martii 2010 (UTC)
:::That's it -- the reason for the warning is that chaining nouns together is a very common thing to do in English, far less common in Latin: but it works here.
:On your other question, I believe '''lapis''' is the better word. I think '''saxum''' is more likely to mean an individual bit of rock.
::I'll move it then, but I'd still like to see a good geology text in Latin to settle all these questions. [[Usor:Pantocrator|Pantocrator]] 13:34, 31 Martii 2010 (UTC)
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 converting to 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 probably better use it ... even if the CIL is right in its translation of "lapis granatus". I don't know enough geology to comment on that, but it seems unwise anyway to choose "lapis granatus" in the sense "granite" if it is better known in the sense "garnet".
:::I believe they do mean 'granite'; note the synonym given ''lapis syenites'', which could not mean 'garnet'. Anyway, garnet also comes from the same Latin root, it is thought from the color of the fruit. [[Usor:Pantocrator|Pantocrator]] 12:55, 2 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
::Hmm, the etymon of 'granite' couldn't possibly correspond to the Latin 'granatum' — that'd be a third- or fourth-conjugation verb having a participle of the first conjugation. Littré gives the etymology of the French cognate ''granit'' through bas-latin ''granitum'' (which does get [http://books.google.com/books?q=granitum+&btnG=Search+Books some ghits]). —[[Usor:Mycēs|Mucius Tever]] 03:11, 2 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
:::My source was the ''Oxford dictionary of English etymology'', which is staid but (nearly always) reliable. It takes granite back to Italian granito; it doesn't mention the late-Latin (whether because the compiler thought the Latin to be borrowed from the Italian, or for some other reason, I don't know). It also specifically says that both words (granite and pomegranate) are cognate historically with English ''grain''. My assumption, given this information, was that the Italian ''granito'' was formed without sufficient reference to classical conjugations! But there may well be some other explanation inaccessible to me.
::::Yes, it seems to have somehow gotten to the fourth conjugation in Italian; hence the modern forms. [[Usor:Pantocrator|Pantocrator]] 12:55, 2 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
:::[http://books.google.nl/books?ei=nKq1S-mAPYvJ-Qa9-Jz9Ag&ct=result&q=%22marmor+granitum%22+OR+%22granitum+marmor%22&lr=&sa=N&start=10 Several sources] mention a mediaeval Latin expression "marmor granitum", sometimes abbreviated to simple "granitum", which would be at the root of Italian "granito" and hence of English "granite". Sticking close to Pantocrator's original suggestion, we might call the article [[Granitum (lapis)]], with a redirect at [[Lapis granites]]. [[Granatum (lapis)]] should then be converted into an article about the [[:en:Garnet|garnet]]. --[[Usor:Fabullus|Fabullus]] 08:56, 2 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
| |||