Talk:Verticordia brachypoda

Australia: Western Australia / Biota Low‑importance

	Australia portal Verticordia brachypoda is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Western Australia (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian biota (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Western Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Plants Low‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Etymology of brachypoda[edit]

Turczaninow did not provide the derivation of brachypoda but since this is an article about a plant, an etymology that can be understood by a Wikipedia reader interested in plants is required. Such readers are not familiar with terms like "pous, genitive podos (πούς, genitive ποδός) meaning foot". It is necessary to provide a derivation that readers interested in a plant will comprehend. It is most unlikely that a person interested in knowing that ποδός is the genitive form of podos will refer to an article about a verticordia.

This is information better suited to a Wiktionary article. There is such an article, but it presently lacks a reliable reference. Perhaps an editor who wants readers to know that -poda is somehow derived from podos (πούς, genitive ποδός) meaning "foot", should instead be editing Wiktionary articles. It would greatly assist those few readers of a plant article, who want to know the derivation of the Greek words used in botanical Latin, if there was a link to the Wiktionary article like this: "The specific epithet (brachypoda) is derived from the Ancient Greek words brakhus meaning "short" and podos meaning "foot"." Gderrin (talk) 02:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above - it should be remembered that linking to other projects, including Wiktionary, is encouraged. (See WP:SIS) The references to "brakhus" and "podos", as in an earlier version of this article, should of course be included. Gderrin (talk) 03:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please, read your contribution and revise it, as "ποδός is the genitive form of podos " is non-sense, as "ποδός is the genitive form of pous (πούς). And "-poda is somehow derived from podos" is also non-sense, as -poda is not derived from the genitive case. And: "The specific epithet (brachypoda) is derived from the Ancient Greek words brakhus meaning "short" and podos meaning "foot"." is also non-sense. Wimpus (talk) 10:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I have tried to explain, statements like "ποδός is the genitive form of pous (πούς)" belong in Wiktionary. Such statements as 'brachypoda is derived from the ancient Greek terms brachys (βραχύς), meaning "short" and pous, genitive podos (πούς, genitive ποδός) meaning "foot"' would be nonsense to readers of plant articles. That kind of language is not in any book about plants or in any botany journal. I think that should be clear to you, considering how many editors have reverted your changes. Gderrin (talk) 11:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is sourced from a botanical dictionary. So, see also here, here, here in which both the nominative and genitive case pous and podos are given. How do I have to interpret "That kind of language is not in any book about plants or in any botany journal."? Wimpus (talk) 11:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hello @Cygnis insignis: and @JarrahTree: Would you be agreeable to changing the contested edit to "...the ancient Greek brachys meaning "short" and pous podos meaning " a foot",^[1] referring to the length of the stalk supporting the inflorescence"? I think that is what is being proposed in the previous paragraph. (Unfortunately, I do not have access to the cited book.) Gderrin (talk) 20:18, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the ancient Greek brachys meaning "short" and pous (genitive podos) meaning "a foot" would be an acceptable compromise. The meaning "short-stalked" can also be sourced to the Vocabulary section in Stearn's Botanical Latin.^[2] Peter coxhead (talk) 11:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gderrin has not made clear why it would be non-sense. It can not be the inclusion of the Greek characters, as Gderrin added himself words in Greek characters to these articles: [1]; [2];[3];[4];[5];[6];[7];[8];[9];[10];[11];[12];[13];[14];[15];[16];[17]. Wimpus (talk) 11:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Peter coxhead: I appreciate your suggested compromise. Just to be clear, I do not see any Greek characters, or the words "genitive" or "nominative" in any book about plants or in any botany journal, nor in the references listed by editor @Wimpus: It is true that in articles I edited more than two years ago, I added Greek characters. On refelection, that was probably a mistake and one that I am prepared to correct. I added those Greek letters mainly to articles about melaleucas and eremophilas. That said, I am prepared to compromise and accept changing the etymology in this article to the ...ancient Greek brachys meaning "short" and pous (genitive podos) meaning "a foot", even though I think it is unnecessary to include "genitive". I would also appreciate the opinions of @Cygnis insignis: and @JarrahTree: Gderrin (talk) 07:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a book, in which you can explain in the introduction that the second form that is provided, is the genitive case. On p. 5 of Roland Wilbur Brown's The Composition of Scientific Words you can read for example:

The genitives of nouns are given only when they help to clarify the spelling of the root-stem or combining base. For this reason the genitives in -ae of Latin first and in -i of second declension nouns, and those in -on of Greek nouns, are omitted.

In case people are not aware, that the second form is the genitive case, people can misinterpret the second form as equivalent (nominative) case.

Gderrin, over the last few years, you seem to have randomly picked the nominative or the genitive case (when sourcing Brown), probably not knowing the difference between those two and probably not aware of the explanation of Roland Wilbur Brown on p. 5. Adding the word "genitive", possibly as link, could partially remediates this.

This example you have written, illustrates this nicely:

Francis Sharr gives the etymology as derived from the Latin littus littoris "seashore or beach" and -cola meaning "-dweller".^[3] Other sources give littus, litus as Latin meaning "shore", "beach" or "bank" ^[4]^: 205^[5]^: 442 and -cola meaning "dweller".^[4]^: 144^[5]^: 387

The second form of "littus littoris" (missing a comma) is the genitive case, while in "littus, litus", the second form is an orthographic nominative alternative. That is quite confusing. First, I thought that you wanted to express, that "litus" is the genitive case of "litus" and you just made a typo. But "litus, genitive litus" is "a smearing, besmearing, anointing". The only thing you needed to express, is that "litus" can be written with one or two t's. I do not wish to discuss "littus, litus" per se, but I do want emphasize that we have to be precise and not careless, when providing an etymology. And, as alot of Latinized Greek forms are already presented by Gderrin as ancient Greek forms, adding Greek characters can only highlight that were talking about real Greek. Wimpus (talk) 08:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Backer, C.A. (1936). Verklarend woordenboek der wetenschappelijke namen van de in Nederland en Nederlandsch-Indië in het wild groeiende en in tuinen en parken gekweekte varens en hoogere planten (Edition Nicoline van der Sijs).
^ Stearn, W.T. (2004), Botanical Latin (4th (p/b) ed.), Portland, Oregon: Timber Press, p. 378, ISBN 978-0-7153-1643-6
^ Francis Aubie Sharr (2019). Western Australian Plant Names and their Meanings. Kardinya, Western Australia: Four Gables Press. p. 241. ISBN 9780958034180.
^ ^a ^b Short, Emma; George, Alex (2013). A Primer of Botanical Latin with Vocabulary. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781107693753.
^ ^a ^b Stearn, William T. (1992). Botanical Latin - History, Grammar, Syntax, Terminology and Vocabulary. Portland, Oregon: Timber Press. ISBN 0881923214.

[Backer-1] Backer, C.A. (1936). Verklarend woordenboek der wetenschappelijke namen van de in Nederland en Nederlandsch-Indië in het wild groeiende en in tuinen en parken gekweekte varens en hoogere planten (Edition Nicoline van der Sijs).

[Stea04-2] Stearn, W.T. (2004), Botanical Latin (4th (p/b) ed.), Portland, Oregon: Timber Press, p. 378, ISBN 978-0-7153-1643-6

[Sharr-3] Francis Aubie Sharr (2019). Western Australian Plant Names and their Meanings. Kardinya, Western Australia: Four Gables Press. p. 241. ISBN 9780958034180.

[Short-4] Short, Emma; George, Alex (2013). A Primer of Botanical Latin with Vocabulary. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781107693753.

[Stearn-5] Stearn, William T. (1992). Botanical Latin - History, Grammar, Syntax, Terminology and Vocabulary. Portland, Oregon: Timber Press. ISBN 0881923214.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]