Disputatio:Microprocessorium

message: This article currently links to :en:Microprocessor. What, then, is going to be Vicipaedia's lemma for :en:Processor? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:10, 26 Decembris 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice catch Iacobus! I'm searching for word processor at the Einglish wiki.--Jondel (disputatio) 14:17, 26 Decembris 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Confused linking?

message: The only attested lemma that so far (in nearly twelve years!) has been offered is the one added just now (for editorium). Do other published lexicons (e.g. Morgan's) have anything to say on this topic? If not, the text should be moved to editorium, and then eventually, if left unchanged, it should be deleted because it's not a stub! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:14, 26 Decembris 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Today I moved it from processor (m.). Here is a short discussion about the lemma. --Grufo (disputatio) 15:26, 26 Decembris 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :None of which offers an authentic attestation published outside Vicilandia, so mos vicipaedianus tells us to move the page to the attested form: editorium. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:40, 26 Decembris 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: ::In Latin the verb ēdō means "I give out, put or bring forth; eject, discharge". The use of the verb procedo (< processor, procestrum) was not casual: it puts emphasis on the action of calculating step by step. Words like editorium/editrum (< edo) would completely loose this aspect. And could bring confusion with the possible use of the verbs ēdō/ēditō as the translation of the english "to publish" in the same context. Think also about the action of the processor: it's called "process". In the case of procestrum you would have a word for the action of the processor: processus, -us ("process"). In the case of editorium/editrum? Would you take editus, -us ("defecation, excrement")? Did you know that editus boum‎ means "bulls’ shit"  ? :-) --Grufo (disputatio) 16:15, 26 Decembris 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Your disagreement is with Traupman, not with anybody on this page. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:16, 26 Decembris 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Well, I don't want to convince Traupman… just the vicipaediani :) Notice anyway that the use of prōcēdō is out of the question – despite Traupman's ēdō. --Grufo (disputatio) 17:35, 26 Decembris 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Lemma

message: The page is linked to :en:Microprocessor. We have an attestation for that:  microprocessorium. According to custom, that should therefore become the lemma of this article. ¶ Then a new article, on English processor, should be drafted; the same source (2007) gives an attestation of that: elaboratorium, with a synonym: processorium. Those, plus editorium, are the pertinent potential lemmata. ¶ If a third article is wanted, on coprocessor, the same dictionary gives an attestation of that: processorium again. Now will someone check Morgan's list for us? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:40, 26 Decembris 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I added further attestations for microprocessorium. ¶ I agree. A new article on processor is in order. My sources for processorium are the same as those for microprocessorium. Grufo's procestrum, though grammatical, seems to lack attestations. ¶ For microprocessor, Morgan gives minimum mechanema electronicum [Acta Apost. Sedis, s.20] and micromechanema [Eichenseer], of which the first looks like being rather a definiens than a difiniendum. For processor, Morgan offers unitas centralis. Neander (disputatio) 20:00, 26 Decembris 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Attested forms