Quantum redactiones paginae "Disputatio:Cypros (planta)" differant
Content deleted Content added
→Cypros or Lawsonia inermis?: nova pars |
|||
Linea 71:
The only real question remaining is whether the article should be called [[Cypros (arbustum)]] or ''[[Lawsonia inermis]]''. Personally, I prefer the name ‘cypros’, because it is the classical Latin name, as opposed to ‘Lawsonia’, and we have once decided to prefer classical Latin over Latin of other periods, unless there is no clear classical term. Besides, there is no chance of misunderstanding here, as there is no other plant species with which cypros could be identified. --[[Usor:Fabullus|Fabullus]] 09:46, 12 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
:A good idea to get back to the original point: forgive me if I now get a little more general again (I hope it remains relevant!). What you propose may work very well in this case: I haven't studied it sufficiently. But, as a rule-of-thumb, I would argue that it's a good idea to plan for, or allow for, an article about the scientific species ''and'' about the plant as known and named by Roman (and/or medieval) plant users. Here's my reasoning:
:#Scientific species are as defined by Linnaeus and followers. Actually they aren't fixed -- we know many cases where the names and hierarchies have changed. But the definition is what it is, it's easily quoted, and modern knowledge of the plant tends to link to it.
:#Although you may be right about ''cypros'', many ancient names are not easily, firmly, unambiguously and uniquely attached to a currently recognised species: they may wander across variety or species or even genus or family boundaries. Yet the name corresponded to a recognised concept in ancient (or medieval) texts, and to that name was attached knowledge of all kinds from agricultural to medical. It may be difficult for us (or indeed for a ''reliable'' modern source!) to define exactly what species or variety was referred to. Yet that ancient knowledge is actually useful and is often cited. If we attach it unambiguously to a modern species, when in fact there is doubt or vagueness involved, we're not helping. So I am for articles under common/classical Latin names ''as well'', and I don't agree with Iacobus that such articles would be just about etymology. They should be about cultural concepts and uses in classical and medieval times.
:Iacobus is absolutely right that there is terrible confusion in en:wiki, because of the rule there that the commonest English names must be used. We're in a different position, since Latin is our language and Latin includes botanical as well as classical. I think we could avoid that confusion by acknowledging the need for more than one article in these cases. <font face="Gill Sans">[[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew]]<font color="green">[[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby| Dalby]]</font></font> 10:13, 12 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
| |||