Disputatio:Thea

message: Quomodo est in lingua latina: thea nigra aut thea rubra? Quia germanice dicitur nigra et velut hispanice rubrum. --Partonopier 12:37, 24 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quid volumus dicere? Thea sine lacte? Aut thea e foliis fumatis? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:21, 24 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :No, I mean black (fermented) tea instead of green (non fermented) tea. At least that's what this is called in German. Is there a similar opposition in english? Anyway, I've just seen that it has been replaced by "varietas Earl Grey", that also sounds good (although this could be any kind of black tea :-). But if someone knew sth about black/red/white tea in Latin, I'd be thankful because I wanted to extend the article a bit. --Partonopier 18:11, 24 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Sorry, I lost sight of this discussion till now. If people say "black tea" in English for that concept, it's ambiguous, because some other people in English use "black tea" as a term for "tea without milk"! As for Latin, I have no idea. I suggest it's better to be explicit and say "e foliis fermentatis". That's bound to be right. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:56, 8 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Ok, thanks, I didn't know that with the milk. I corrected it in the article. But that raises another question: are green tea for non-fermented and white tea for Pai Mu Tan also just German expressions? --Partonopier 15:23, 8 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Green tea is known in English, yes. White tea I haven't heard! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:36, 9 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thea nigra, rubra, virida...? 

message: Even if we called it infusio and not infusion, this still wouldn't be right. It doesn't mean the same thing in Latin, does it? Infusio means a pouring in, of sorts, not an osmotic process...--Ioscius (disp) 12:53, 24 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems similar to Spanish: all kinds of tea that are not made of camilla siniensis are called "infusión" in that language. The question is which modern language we want to prefer if there's nothing similar in latin (same as in my question above).--Partonopier 13:10, 24 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Hispanice tisana et Francogallice Angliceque tisane (< Latine ptisana < Graece ptisanē 'crushed barley') = 'an infusion (as of dried herbs) used as a beverage or for medicinal effects' (Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary). IacobusAmor 13:35, 24 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Still doesn't speak to the issue of whether or not infusio is the correct Latin word...--Ioscius (disp) 13:56, 24 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::It observes that, for the concept in question, ptisana is a correct Latin word. As for English infusion, Ainsworth's (eighteenth-century) English–Latin dictionary defines it as infusio and says Pliny used it. What more could one want? IacobusAmor 14:57, 24 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

text: :::Habeo nomen infusum (2. decl. neut.) e lingua Latina apothecariorum. Sententiam autem rescribo quia, si ex aliis plantis parata est, non est thea! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:21, 24 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Ainsworth's (see above) has infusus (4th declension) and says Pliny used it, but it doesn't have infusum. IacobusAmor 14:57, 24 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::This website, which looks like a reliable one, translates as infusio, but probably in the wrong context... --Harrissimo 16:45, 24 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::[Answering Iacobus]: Yes, Pliny did use infusus (4th declension) but not in the required sense. His sentence is sonitus auris emendat infusu: infusu here means "the pouring in" of some medicine or other into the unfortunate patient's ears, not the beverage that results from pouring hot water on to the leaves of a plant! Infusio (according to Lewis and Short) has the same problem: it doesn't, in classical Latin, mean what we mean by "an infusion". I agree with Ioscius on that. And ptisana is also difficult because its literal meaning is specifically "barley water". There may yet be a term with a better pedigree than my infusum (2nd decl. neut.) (for which, ), but I haven't seen the evidence of it yet. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:49, 24 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::::I'm an expert on neither infusions nor Pliny, but I can report that Ainsworth's dictionary defines infusio as "a pouring in or upon, a steeping, an infusion, Plin." It defines infusus as "an infusion, or steeping in. Sonitus aurium [sic] emendat infusu, Plin." Perhaps the sense of steeping has changed. IacobusAmor 18:23, 24 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::::Sorry Iacobe, I missed this till now. Ainsworth is maybe a bit outdated as a source for what Pliny said and meant. Lewis and Short is slightly better (see ) and while they cite Pliny, they don't give "infusion" as a possible translation for this word. If you check Pliny directly, I think you'll agree with them. For infusus (), the same applies, and I think you probably already agree with me that one doesn't pour tea into one's ears or steep one's ears :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:32, 8 Augusti 2007 (UTC) 
This also supports the infusum theory (see Infusum Scoparii - the infusion of Broom) which is definitely in the right context. --Harrissimo 18:20, 24 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I think it is, though I have never yet drunk an infusion of broom. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:32, 8 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thea ex pars alia planta parata [[infusion]] appellata est. 

message: I gave it a feminine ending because that's what it looks like in Italian and Spanish: I didn't check further. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:48, 24 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whitaker gives neutri generis: coffeinum. Let me look around. --Ioscius (disp) 14:58, 24 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Whatever it is, its form & gender are most likely to parallel those of the other -ein English words, including (homo)cysteine and protein. IacobusAmor 15:56, 24 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::I think Ioscius is correct. See this (page 5) and also this which both say Coffeinum. That also fits in with the Protein(um) pattern. --Harrissimo 16:38, 24 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::I would have thought more like -ine words...it's an alkaloid compound, so you would expect it more like alkaline, nicotine, theobromine, etc...--Ioscius (disp) 16:40, 24 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Which end in -num, in Latin? --Harrissimo 16:49, 24 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::This is the part that's throwing me off... Actually it's nicotina, if memory serves me...--Ioscius (disp) 17:06, 24 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::Just look down the list on the PDF link I added. All of the '-ine's are -num (or -ni (gen.)) - and this site even suggests nicotinum. --Harrissimo 17:09, 24 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::::Oh good.--17:19, 24 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Caffeina

message: I put the first paragraph back again, roughly as Ioscius and I edited it. It was reverted on 1st August, by mistake I guess. If there's any problem with it, please forgive me and explain! But it is important to have it clear that tea is an infusion, whatever our word for infusion turns out to be. I will now write a stub for infusum. This isn't meant to hijack the discussion above -- the article can move, if and when we fix on a better word! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:49, 8 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure, but if this happened on 1st of August, it must have been me. Probably I copied an old version of that first paragraph from my mensa scriptoria, sorry. I completely agree with your text. --Partonopier 14:58, 8 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Thanks for your reply, Partonopier. I guessed that might be the reason! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:35, 9 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lost first paragraph

message: Is "thea" original latin or a recently invented word? [Anon]
replies: text: I'm not sure when you think "original Latin" stops! The word is some centuries old, but not as old as classical or medieval Latin, because their unlucky speakers hadn't ever encountered this beverage. Thanks, this is an important question: we ought to say in the article who first used the Latin word, and when. Not sure if I have suitable sources at hand. I'm having a look. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:01, 27 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: :I haven't been able to prove my claim "some centuries". I only got back to 1855 (and not quite sure about that). Some others may have better sources. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:52, 27 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ::I think I have partly answered this now (someone please tell me if not). Chaa, the earliest word used in Latin for this beverage, appeared in a Latin text in 1599, so that's when it was a neologism. "Thea" came a bit later -- I still don't know exactly when. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:40, 12 Novembris 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neologism? 

message: Apud Iohannem Iacobum Hofmannum inveni verbum "cha". Si intellegi bene nomen fuit potionis huius. http://www.uni-mannheim.de/mateo/camenaref/hofmann/hof1/s0813a.html fortasse utile potest esse vobis. -- [Anon]
replies: text: Pro certo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:36, 31 Maii 2012 (UTC)
Optimum est, gratias ago quia audivistis suggestionem meam. Velim id fiat quoque in Italica Vicipedia!--78.12.38.78 10:31, 1 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cha