Disputatio:Cochlea (animal)

message: Ok...check it. We have these taxoboxes. Let's use them. Latine Sciente is not good. Put the genus species in the taxo box, and then you don't even have the need for such a coinage. I edited this on your Coala page, and you seem not to have noticed.--Ioshus (disp) 04:02, 4 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure exactly what I did wrong. My thing was in a taxbox, it was just a slightly different one... and also I have noticed your edits to coala and thank you for them. I used that tax box in several of my newer articles (check them out and you'll see). I think Giraffa is one of them. Alexanderr 04:05, 4 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :Ok well a few things:

text: :# is Latine Sciente. Where did you come up with this? As best I can see it means "in Knowing Latin" (sciens, scientis, abl sciente is present active particple of scio, scire). It does not mean, "in scientific latin". Nor do we need such a coinage, since all relevant information will be in the taxobox.

text: :# is that this is an article titled "snail" about the class of animals called "gastropoda" cf :en:Gastropoda, :en:Snail.

text: :# speaking of :en:Gastropoda, it is always easy to tell from which langugage you have translated an article, because you neglect to add that language's interwiki link. I know you can't copy paste it but it wouldn't kill you to put en:Gastropoda at the bottom of this page, would it?

text: :#Animal, animalis, n. Animales is an uncommon form of a late feminine form of this word, you mean animalia.

text: :# what is sciatur?

text: :# --Ioshus (disp) 04:18, 4 Septembris 2006 (UTC)I'll think of something else...
Okay, and this is how I answer...
#My mistake, I did mean scientific latin. I'm sorry if I messed up and won't use that form again.
#This article is actually a translation of the first paragraph of the de:Schnecken and a paragraph from the en:Snail on hibernation, and I believe the first paragraph of the Fortpflanzung section of the de:Schnecken not actually about Gastropoda. All the information is specifically about Snails.
#Sorry I didn't add the en.wikipedia link. I'll do that. But while looking over the wikipedia links, check as to what kind of articles they link to. They are all concerning snails...
#Well actually I did intend to write animales, even if that is an uncommon form.
#Sciatur is according to Witaker's words I meant "it is known" or "it is understood that".
Alexanderr 04:27, 4 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

text: # Good.

text: # Look at Schnecken, I don't speak a lick of german, and I can see that it says (Gastropoda) right after the title. So if you translated this article, then, like I said, you have written an article Gastropoda under the name Cochlea.

text: # I've noticed it on most of your translations. Please do remember this.

text: # That's wonderful. Mean to write animalia, instead...

text: # William Whitaker says this: "4 1 PRES PASSIVE SUB 3 S". That 'SUB" means subjunctive. Do they not teach subjunctive in the neodox method? I have noticed this in almost all of your pages, you for some reason choose a subjunctive form of the verb which you are trying to use. If you're on William Whitaker, look for "IND" instead of "SUB".--Ioshus (disp) 04:57, 4 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :# -

text: :#Okay, it says Gastopoda, and the article is interwiki linked by it but every paragraph which I translated had the word "schnecke" in it which only means snail (or at least that is what I've been taught - could Roland check this out?)

text: :#I'll try.

text: :#Well I'm not really going after classical latin...and there is nothing wrong with animalis...

text: :#Okay, if I messed up then I messed up, but appelletur is subjective and means "is called", right? I've been using that as my yardstick. If I'm wrong then I'll fix it in the future, but that is how I've been thinking.

text: :#Alexanderr 05:06, 4 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

text: # -

text: # He can check it all he wants, the thing says (Gastropoda) man!

text: # Don't try, do.

text: # Dammit, man, listen! Go for classical latin when writing scientific articles, or at least scientific latin. There is a time and place for vulgate, not in a science article. Animal, animalis, n. Animalia, pl.

text: # Apellatur means it is called, apelletur is subjunctive for the same. You're wrong, fix it in the future.--Ioshus (disp) 05:11, 4 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

text: # -

text: # I think he might know just a little bit better than you and I, in either case I believe at least that they put (Gastropoda) because that is the furthest division of it, which isn't specific for each snail...

text: # Ioshus, Animalis might not be classical, but it is equally valid, and I'm sure it is understandable. I don't think people'd run away in horror at seeing it in a scientific article.

text: # Will do. Alexanderr 05:20, 4 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

message: Your editing is such a help. I mean adding a template that doesn't exist, and making one petty change just because I didn't want it... man where would this article be without you. Alexanderr 05:40, 4 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh and yes, I did link to "Animalia" because as I said I intended to use Animales. I wasn't making any mistake. Alexanderr 05:41, 4 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :Dude, you freaking asked for this! You didn't want something THAT WAS WRONG! I tried to convince you of this and you didn't listen. I don't know what to do with you. besides, you have already been admonished to put an infecta or maxcorrigenda template on your work if you are unsure about it. And after all my points that I raised, how COULDN'T you have known it needed work?!--Ioshus (disp) 05:45, 4 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Yeah, and that's (Great Latin Language...) where I got the bit about it not having to be from a specific era. So I don't see what point you are trying to make. It only reinforces the fact that can be animales as well as animalias or whatever. And as for it needing correcting - sure I knew that, but I was refering to you not doing anything but change ONE SINGLE WORD and a template. Alexanderr 05:50, 4 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :::A single word and a template which I shouldn't have had to fix, since you were told about both already. My life does not revolve (save for the past three days) around fixing your latin, dude.--Ioshus (disp) 05:53, 4 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Ahhh, but for one who talks about what is right and what is wrong for a scientific wikipedia article you should care if I write in bad latin, and try to help me fix it, as you did with the -tur bit. I just hoped that your caring would extend beyond one word which was perfect as it was. Alexanderr 05:56, 4 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::Now you're just taking shots, If you think i haven't tried, at all conceiveable junctures, to help you with your latin, you are ignoring the proper view on things. Furthermore you requested that Roland check something, so I don't want to "fix" your article til you figure out what it is you were writing about in the first place. The template is there to warn others you happen by this wikipedia that the article they are reading is not an example of good latin. If we had more editors here, it wouldn't be as necessary an evil. until you clean up your latin, I'd learn to live with it.--Ioshus (disp) 05:59, 4 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::I was fine living with "infecta" but you had to change the template for no obvious reason. Yes, it might be awful latin, but is changing the template from "infecta" to "maxcorrigenda" the most important thing? I think not. You just had to have your classical way on the "animal" bit, and decided to change the template as an after thought. And incase you decide to say that all I want is it to be my way, which is true, I'll tell you that yes, I'd like it to be my way on this, but I don't go to articles that already have "animalia" and decide to change them like you do. Alexanderr 06:03, 4 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

text: ::::There was no template whatsoever until here. They're in the family animalia. Animalia is an established scientific word. I don't know how to reason with you. You are presented with fact, and you see fiction.--Ioshus (disp) 06:10, 4 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::Okay, you are right about the template, but I do usually add the infecta template (check most of my recent edits). And I am NOT disputing the fact that animal is an established scientific word, I am only disputing why animalis shouldn't be used. Alexanderr 06:15, 4 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow 

message: *1)A schnecke is a snail. (or a slug --Roland (disp.) 23:20, 4 Septembris 2006 (UTC))
*2)Schnecken, as a student of german, you can see is the plural of this. This is because they use the plural of snail to mean the family gastropoda. They also use this particle schnecke for other similar creatures, cf nacktschnecke is slug (nackt=naked).
From Roland's own fingers, a translation of the first sentence:
*Josh: but if i were traqnslating this article, would i call it en:Snail, or en:Gastropods?
*Roland: Just look into the German WP:
Schnecken (Gastropoda) bilden die artenreichste Tierklasse aus dem Stamm der Mollusca (Weichtiere).
*Roland: "Schnecken (Gastropodia) build the most "artenreich" (=many arten) class of animals in the "stamm" (tribe?) of the soft animals...you are right."
*3)Furthermore look at the list of interwiki links on :de:Schnecken, I copy here for convenience: :bg:Коремоноги
replies: text: cs:Plži

text: da:Snegl

text: en:Gastropoda

text: es:Gastropoda

text: fi:Kotilot

text: fr:Gastropoda

text: he:חילזון

text: hr:Puževi

text: io:Gasteropodo

text: is:Sniglar

text: it:Gastropoda

text: ja:腹足綱

text: ko:복족류

text: lt:Pilvakojai

text: ms:Siput

text: nl:Slakken

text: no:Snegler

text: pl:Ślimaki

text: pt:Gastropoda

text: sk:Ulitníky

text: sv:Snäckor

text: tr:Karından bacaklılar

text: uk:Черевоногі

text: zh:腹足纲
Notice that all the latinate languages have gastropoda as the translation. Then look at the interwikis on :en:Snail

text: pdc:Schneck

text: es:Caracol

text: eo:Heliko

text: fr:Escargot

text: ko:달팽이

text: io:Heliko

text: os:Сæтæлæг

text: lv:Gliemezis

text: ja:カタツムリ

text: zh:蜗牛
Notice that these are not gastropod articles, but snail articles. The languages that have this article under a form similar to snail, ie snigl, sneil, etc, like german, do not have a special name for the animal vs the class. So I will repeat, if you meant to tranlate de:Schnecken, this article should be Gastropoda, if you meant to translate en:Snail, we would go to Cochlea (animal) (not animalis, because they are in the kingdom animalia, not animales). Am i coming across a little more clearly??--Ioshus (disp) 22:32, 4 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conversation with Roland 

message: Also remember what Iustinus told you. Cochlea means spiral before it means anything else. So a gastropod with no shell, like a slug or one of those weird underwater things they show on the de:Schnecken page can't be cochleae, because the term specifically refers to the shape of the shell.--Ioshus (disp) 23:03, 4 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: de:Cochlea and :en:Cochlea link both to the inner ear. --Roland (disp.) 23:15, 4 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  spiral 

message: Schnecke: http://dict.leo.org/ende?lp=ende&lang=de&searchLoc=0&cmpType=relaxed§Hdr=on&spellToler=on&search=Schnecke&relink=on
* cochlea [anat.]
* slug [zool.]
* snail [zool.]
--Roland (disp.) 23:25, 4 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: leo.org

message: I spent way too much time arguing about nothing on this article and really just don't care anymore. Delete it if it is wrong. Or fix it if you like. Alexanderr 00:28, 5 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well maybe I'll fix it on second thought...I don't know though. Alexanderr 00:29, 5 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :Wtf!? I spent half my evening worrying about this freaking article, so that a) you could be more informed, b) we could come to an agreement, and c) so that your decision would reflect knowledge from a native german speaker. I talked to the person whom you wanted me to speak, and provided you with plenty of links. What more does it take?!--Ioshus (disp) 00:34, 5 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ::I'm just tired and fed up. You didn't do anything wrong. I'm not angry. Just....fed up. Maybe I'll edit, or do whatever later. Alexanderr 00:55, 5 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whatever 

message: Always, always, always capitalize the Genus name.
Never, never, never capitalize the species name.
Homo sapiens always. In the middle of the sentence we're still Homo sapiens. If you choose to abbreviate it is H. sapiens.
That is the rule for taxonomic names in Latin. I won't argue this. I got an F on an assignment in college for forgetting this bit of trivia. Sinister Petrus 01:35, 5 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most certainly agreed, Petre. But in this article, we deal with no genus. Snail is a rather broad term if you read en:Snail, applicapble, apparently, to a huge number of genera within the class Mollusca.--Ioshus (disp) 04:38, 5 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :Sine dubio, recte dicis. Yeah, I should have mentioned that my mini-rant pertained to a *very* few spots in the article and not the article title. Mea culpa. Sinister Petrus 05:33, 5 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ::It is also my Official Opinion that when we're giving the scientific name of a species it should always be italicized, and (as far as can be done without breaking the rules of grammar) kept in the nominative. The latter because scientific names are meant to be international, and easily recognized in any language. The former because scientific names do not always line up correctly with "common" Latin names (there is a difference between a Canis latrans and a canis latrans afterall). --Iustinus 11:32, 5 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Yeah, no doubt, there is a difference between Canis latrans and Canis latrans. But there shouldn't be any problem in making sure that Canis latrans is always nominative. It's all in how you choose to write the article. There are ways around almost, but not quite, everything. Sinister Petrus 03:47, 6 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Well, yes, you can pretty much always do things like "speciem nomine Canis latrans" or "speciem quae est Canis latrans". --Iustinus 04:01, 6 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genus species 

message: What I have found:
* Langenscheidt Taschenwörterbuch Latein: 
**Schnecke: cochlea; (ohne Haus) limax ... ohne Haus = without a house
**Schneckenhaus: cochlea testa ... = the house on her back
**coc(h)lea: 1. Schnecke 2. Schneckenhaus
**limax ... (I could not find this term)
*Pons:
**coc(h)lea: 1. Schnecke; Schneckenhaus 2. Schraube 3. Turm mit einer Wendeltreppe
But these dictionaries are not very sophisticated. So I do not know if they help much with the actual question. And we also have :de:Zimtschnecken, which are often just called "Schnecke(n)" in the bakery. We eat them ... ;-) --Roland (disp.) 06:50, 5 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Limax = "slug" of course. As for Zimtschnecken... well I thought eating snails was a French thing ;) (Seriously, the Romans were very conaisseurs of snails as well, and if this article ever gets pulled together, I'll add a bit about that) --Iustinus 11:28, 5 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

text: I should also mention that in adition to cochlea and testa, a snail-shell (that is the English for Schneckenhaus, of course) can be called a putamen, at least in culinary sources. --Iustinus 11:35, 5 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zimtschnecke 

message: Hey, Alexanderr, are you still working on this one? Because I don't want to interfere with it (make corrections to the Latin, add information about snails in the ancient world, etc.) until you're done. --Iustinus 17:09, 8 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm done. I wanted to add a bit on reproduction (hence the picture), but you could probably do a better job. Alexanderr 23:00, 8 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nu?