Disputatio:Coracinus

message: I wonder if ϣⲁϥⲟⲩⲣ is from ḫfrr "tadpole" --Iustinus 21:25, 16 Martii 2009 (UTC)

message: Note to self: please add a section to this article on possible identification with the abramis: footnote 3, Dalby p. 232. Since we don't know for certain what it was, perhaps abramis should link to this planned future section. On the other hand, biological Latin uses abramis for "bream," so maybe not.  I've also seen claims that abramis comes from pɜ rm ("the fish") > ⲡⲣⲁⲙⲉ ("the Nile Tilapia")... which would make perfect sense if the word came to Greek through Arabic, but clearly it didn't. --Iustinus 14:48, 5 Iulii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See also Crum, and sources cited therein. --Iustinus 15:17, 5 Iulii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :P.Lond. 1821 line 422 equates ⲣⲁⲁⲙⲉ with κοριαξός. Crum's Paris papyrus #46, line 237 (and several other sources) equates ⲡⲣⲁⲙⲏ with بلطى. Therefore coriaxos (and coracinus??) = bolṭī. Crum says at this point "cf. ἀβραμίς", meaning, I think, to imply that abramis is from ⲡⲣⲁⲙⲏ, as mentioned above. --Iustinus 17:57, 5 Iulii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::OK, this is interesting, Kircher's Scalae equate ⲕⲟⲩⲗⲁϫⲓ, (which could plausibly be derived from or have inspired the form κορακῖνος), with ابرميص (which is clearly ἀβραμίς spelled out in Arabic letters). --Iustinus 18:04, 5 Iulii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abramis 

message: Athenaeus mentions a sea coracinus as well. Perhaps this should be coracinus fluviatilis or the like, translating Athenaeus' "ποτάμιος κορακῖνος." Or, given that we have a pretty idea what the river coracinus is, but not the marine one maybe this should be the default. Better yet, maybe Coracinus marinus should be a subsection. --Iustinus 20:08, 6 Iulii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Other ''coracini''? 

message: Iacobe, I hate to always be fighting against your corrections, but I do have a problem with one of your changes. You changed "et litteris Aegyptiis charactere K1 repraesentatur" to  "et litteris Aegyptiis littera K1 exprimit."
* Rejecting character is reasonable, as it does not seem to have the required sense in Classical Latin (though I've definitely heard it used elsewhere). Still, I'd rather not repeat littera, so I'll use signo.
* Repraesentare is closer to my intended meaning than exprimere—I'm not really talking about what the glyph K1 means, but what it depicts.
* If we change the voice from passive to active, the sentence needs to be rephrased—as I think you'll see if you look at it again, it doesn't hold together all that well as written. Did you have a particular objection to the passive here?
--Iustinus 03:30, 2 Novembris 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there's a typo:
replies: text: :Antiquitus bene notus erat inter pisces Niloticos, et litteris Aegyptiis littera[m] K1 exprimit.

text: :It was well known among the Nilotic fishes long ago, and in Egyptian letters it represents the character K1.

text: For 'character', Cassell's has "(1) = a symbol in writing, a letter, littera." For 'represent', I suggested exprimit because exprimere is the first option given by Cassell's, reinforced by the example "to [represent] something exactly or to the life, veritatem imitari, ad verum exprimere." Maybe imitatur 'it depicts' would have been better? Your latest redaction seems fine, especially with the (new) link to hieroglyphica Aegyptia! IacobusAmor 09:34, 2 Novembris 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ::But my intended meaning is "It was well known among Nile fish in antiquity, and in Egyptian writing it is represented by the glyph K1" --Iustinus 15:20, 2 Novembris 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: :::. . . et in arte scribendi Aegyptia a glypha K1 exprimitur/(ef)fingitur/(de)pingitur/repraesentatur? ¶ Cassell's says the Classical sense of antiquitus = 'from of old' and 'long ago' (so used by Caesar & Livy). IacobusAmor 17:57, 2 Novembris 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrections