Disputatio:Androides

message: Simulatus ex taberna.--Jondel (disputatio) 00:33, 4 Iulii 2012 (UTC)  :

message: Verbum Anglicum android sit 'androidis' Latine? In alteris linguis similis Anglica, ut androide Hispanice et Italiane. Vide libenter commentationem Anglicam. Donatello (disputatio) 02:04, 17 Iunii 2012 (UTC).
replies: text: Verbum ab ἀνδρός et εἶδος defluere videtur (et enim verbum Graecum hodiernum "ανδροειδές" est). Non is sum, qui Graeca Latine optime converterem, sed mihi videtur quidem verbum Latinum "androïdis" esse. Manedum tamen, ut aliquis haec affirmet ... Mattie (disputatio) 15:34, 17 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: :Apud :en:Ericoid legimus:
replies: text: ::when Linnaeus named an organism, using a specific epithet that described it as being like some particular thing, he commonly did so by appending the suffix "—οειδης". That was a contraction of "—ο + ειδος", denoting a likeness of form. In its Latinised form it became: "—oides". An example is the entry 9413 Stilbe ericoides according to Wappler's Index Plantarum to Linnaeus' "Species Plantarum".Linnaeus, Index Plantarum quae continentur in Linnaeani Systematis. Printed Christian Friedrich Wappler, Vienna 1785 Further derivations emerged at need or convenience, such as "—oidea".

text: :Ergo, ut videtur, habemus vocabulum androides (pl. androidea). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:55, 17 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Macte, Iacobe! Mattie (disputatio) 19:18, 17 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Ita quidem, sed pl. androidea neutrius generis est. Pluralis masculini androides est. Neander (disputatio) 20:33, 17 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::Nomina omnium (ut videtur) superfamiliarum animalium sunt pluralia neutrius generis; e.g., Conoidea, Curculionoidea, Cypraeoidea, Muricoidea, Tephritoidea, &c. Vide etiam subordinem Pterodactyloidea, classem Asteroidea, et subclassem Ammonoidea. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:04, 17 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
Si "androides" est masculinum declinatio sit declination verbi "asteroides": Usor:Fabullus/Declinatio Latina nominum Graecorum --Alex1011 (disputatio) 21:13, 17 Iunii 2012 (UTC)

text: Ita. Androides, quia mas quidam mechanicus putatur esse, in plurali androides declinatur. Neander (disputatio) 22:03, 17 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
Stearn's Botanical LatinStearn, W. (1983). ‘’Botanical Latin. History, grammar, syntax, terminology and vocabulary.’’ (3rd edition). Newton Abbot London: David Charles. (p. 97) declines words on -oides as follows:
M/F, Sing: Nom: bryoides, Gen: bryoidis, Dat: bryoidi, Acc: bryoidem Abl: bryoide, Plur: Nom: bryoides, Gen: bryoidum, Dat: bryoidibus, Acc: bryoides Abl: bryoidibus. N, Sing: Nom: bryoides, Gen: bryoidis, Dat: bryoidi, Acc: bryoides Abl: bryoide, Plur: Nom: bryoida, Gen: bryoidum, Dat: bryoidibus, Acc: bryoides Abl: bryoidibus. 
(p. 98) : 'Such epithets as aloides, alismoides, hyancithoides, orchidoides, phlomoides..., allantoides.., deltoides.., are similarly declined'
replies: text: :Note that Stearn is careful to point out that these are adjectives, not nouns. Also, all botanical generic names "ending in -odes and -oides are now all treated as feminine" (3rd. ed., p. 265); this says nothing about the -oidea names at the level of family and above. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:27, 4 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Dear IacobusAmor, thank you very much for your response and pointing to the specific passage in Stearn . There are however certain pecularities in the passage (boldfaced by me) (p. 265):
replies: text: :::“Botanical generic names ending in –odes and –oides are now all treated as feminine, in accordance with the International Code of botanical Nomenclature, even though a few, e.g. Santaloides, have been often treated as a neuter. The terminations –oides (i.e. -οειδης) and –odes (i.e. –ωδης) are adjectival endings indicating resemblance. Consequently generic names such as Nymphoides and Omphalodes are really adjectives treated as substantives, the word qualified, e.g. βοτανη (f.), arbor (f.), herba (f.), planta (f.) being omitted. …In classical Latin such words took the gender of the noun providing the stem - thus sesamoides was neuter like sesamum - and their gender is not evident from the form. Such names used in zoology are mostly treated as masculine.”

text: :::So, treating this as a feminine in case of an adiectivum substantivatum is typical for the International Code of botanical Nomenclature, while in zoology such a noun is treated as masculine? He notes however, that these words are adiectiva substantivata, and not purely adjectives (in the case of generic names). In classical LatinLewis, C.T. & Short, C. (1879). A Latin dictionary founded on Andrews' edition of Freund's Latin dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press., ascyroides (a plant), cynoides (a plant), neuroides (a kind of wild beet), rhomboides are neuter, mesoides, polygonoides (a species of the plant clematis) are feminine and corsoides, dendroides (a kind of tithymalus), netoides, prasoides are masculine. We can see that in classical Latin that the group of words ending on -oides consists of neuter, feminine and masculine nouns and all three genders can  be seen for plant names ending on -oides. The rule of the International Code of botanical Nomenclature might be a simplification to prevent endless discussions concerning the gender of a certain name. The observation of Stearn that In classical Latin such words took the gender of the noun providing the stem does not seem to be valid in other cases, as rhomboides is a neuter, while rhombus is masculine.Wimpus (disputatio) 20:52, 4 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC)
Is it possible that the plural -oidea is actually the plural of -oideum? The form on -oideus is also used in Latin, but is controversial as can be deduced from the following quotes. 
Hyrtl in it's Onomatologia AnatomicaHyrtl, J. (1880). Onomatologia Anatomica. Geschichte und Kritik der anatomischen Sprache der Gegenwart.’’ Wien: Wilhelm Braumüller. K.K. Hof- und Unversitätsbuchhändler. (p.260) mentions concerning the case of substituting Greek -ειδής with -ideus: 'Alle diese Worte sind latinisirte Griechen. Als lateinische Epitheta, kamen sie erst im Anfange des 17. Jahrhunderts in der Anatomie in Aufnahme, meistens durch J. Riolan....Es steht den Lateinern zu, den Diphthong ei in i zu contrahiren, und die Endsilbe ης in eus zu verwandeln..' 
However, TriepelTriepel, H. (1927). Die anatomischen Namen. Ihre Ableitung und Aussprache. Anhang: Biographische Notizen.(Elfte Auflage). München: Verlag von J.F. Bergmann. (p. 5) does not agree with Hyrtl: 'Sehr häufig begegnen wir anatomischen Namen, die auf -ides [-ideus] ausgehen. Der Grieche bildet, um die Ähnlichkeit eines Gegenstandes mit einem anderen zu bezeichnen, Eigenschaftswörter mit Hilfe der Silben -ειδής (-förmig, von τό είδος die Form). Im Lateinischen wird hieraus ides. (Nicht gestattet ist es, wie Hyrtl meinte, -ειδής in -ideus umzuwandeln.)' 
Additionally, Kossmann Kossmann, R. (1903). Allgemeine Gynaecologie. Berlin: Verlag von August Hirschwald. mentions (p. 587): "Ungeachtet der in der Einleitung zu Roth's klinischer Terminologie (6. Aufl., 1902) ausgesprochenen gegentheiligen Behauptung muss ich die Endung -eum in diesem und den vielen ähnlichen Worten der Baseler Nomenklatur für unlateinisch erklären. Es sind uns einige 20 griechische Eigenschafwörter auf -ειδής in latinisirter Form bei Lateinische Schriftstellern des Alterthums erhalten; die Hälfte davon bei Plinius, die anderen bei Theodorus Priscianus, Appulejus, Vitrivius, Vegetius e. ein. A. Ausnahmslos is bei ihnen die Endung -ēs, im neutr. -ěs, beibehalten (dendroides, cylindroides)." 
When checking Lewis & Short no words end on -oideus/-oidea/-oideum, but 22 results for -oides (excluding names). It seems that the form -oides seems to be the proper form and the plural on -oidea some kind of mixture of -oides and -oideum, or am I mistaken? With kind regards, Wimpus (disputatio) 10:01, 4 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC)

text: :All taxonomical names above the level of genus are plural, so we may take as a given that a form like Asteroidea is plural, and it certainly looks neuter, and (unless it changes genders between singular & plural) the singular must then be either a neuter Asteroides or a neuter Asteroideum or Asteroideon. It might be useful to see whether Linnaeus and other taxonomical authorities ever use any of the higher-level terms in the singular, or at least in a way that might reveal the gender (e.g., "unus/una/unum ex Asteroideis"). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:27, 4 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Stearn mentions (p. 103): “The name of a subfamily (subfamilia) is similarly formed by adding –oideae to the stem of the legimate name of an included genus, e.g. Boraginoideae from Borago. This is the feminine nominative plural ending of group A adjectives such as arachnoideus with the suffix –oideus indicating resemblance." One can infer from this passage, that the ending of a subfamilia is -oideae. Would that mean, that in this case we should use androideae instead of androidea? But, this rule might be restricted to botanic and not zoological nomenclature, as the suffix -oidea is used in the latter (but in that case for a superfamilia such as Homonoidea) . Moreover, he mentions that -oideae is the feminine nominative plural ending of the suffix -oideus and not of the suffix -oides. That would mean that using the singular -oides with the plural -oidea or -oideae would mean that we would be mixing two suffixes, in this case, -oides and -oideus and that does not seem right (to me). TriepelTriepel, H. (1908). Memorial on the anatomical nomenclature of the anatomical society. In A. Rose (Ed.), Medical Greek. Collection of papers on medical onomatology and a grammatical guide to learn modern Greek (pp. 176-193). New York: Peri Hellados publication office. mentions about the ending -ideus (p. 185): "For many decades the terms ending in ideus have been considered as children of sorrow. Among the recent German text books of anatomy there is only the one by Gegenbaur (latest edition by Fürbringer) which gives the names correctlty in ..ides. By this suffix -ides parts of the body are designated which bear resemblance to a certain object. Alongside of names in ..ides there are found in Gegenbaur's book words ending in ..ideus to name things which have relation to those parts of the body. It is true we may find a philological explanation for the suffix ..ideus, but it would be an artificial one after all. ..." In this case, he indicates that some use -ideus as derivative from -ides. Additionally, Triepel says (p.6):

text: ::"Von philologischer Seite wurder der Gebrach der Wörter auf -ideus verworfen, weil es keine von Adjektiven auf -ειδής abgeleiteten Adjektiva auf -ειδειος gibt, aus denen sie gebildet sein könnten. In jüngerer Zeit is von einem griechischen Gelehrten (B. Leonardos in Athen) der ausgezeichnete Vorschlag gemacht worden, Weiterbildungen auf -idicus (ειδικός) einzuführen."

text: ::He refutes -ideus as no corresponding suffix -ειδειος in Greek exists. Given this exposé, using an ending on -ideon for neuter singular seems odd, as -on presupposes a Greek form like -ειδειον or -ειδεον, which actually does not exist (but please check). We could find out, what the pressuposed singular of words on -oidea are. I think -oideum, in accordance with Stearn, that mentiones that it consists of the suffix -oideus. But, these formation rules seem to apply to subfamiliae in botanical nomenclature and superfamiliae in zoological nomenclature (but this is merely a conjecture). Is androides a superfamilia in this case? Additionally, the suffix -oideus is non-existent in classical Latin and seems to be barbarisch by the cited sources. Mixing up -oides (for the singular) and -oideus (for the plural) seems even more barbarisch. My own preferences is -oides as singular and plural or when treated as neuter with -oides as singular and -oida as plural, but I like to hear explicitely the rationale to use the neuter instead of the masculine or feminine. With kind regards, Wimpus (disputatio) 20:52, 4 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::I admire the careful work that you put into this, Wimpus. I feel, like you, that -oides for both singular and plural (masculine/feminine) would be correct (and that for this word "androides" there is no particular reason to require a neuter). Then, although the linguistic origin is different, a Latin declension matching that of "aedes" would be suitable, I think. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:10, 4 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::Dear Andrew, thank you for your response. These issues might be solved differently based on the specific linguistic point of view of the editor. Stearn (1983) sees botanical Latin (and by extension probably also other forms of Latin jargon) as different from classical Latin (p. 46): "It possesses its own standard orthography partly derived from medieval Latin which also diverges from that of classical Latin", while Triepel (1927, p.1) clearly puts more emphasis on the rules of classical Latin (and ancient Greek) as he writes: "Viele neue Ausdrücke waren zu formen, und wenn hierbei die für das Lateinische und Griechisce geltenden Gesetze der Wortbildung gehörig berücksichtigt worden sind, darf das Neue keinesfalls beanstandet werden. Leider ist sehr oft gegen jene Gesetze verstossen worden und schon seit Jahren bemühen sich die Anatomen, ihre Sprache zu reinigen." With kind regards, Wimpus (disputatio) 21:42, 4 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Est 'androidis' Latine?

message: Ave. Demiro si licet sit commentatio de 'ginoides', genus femininum androidis, creamus. Commentatio dicit Genus androides est mas; femina ginoides dicitur. Quid censetis?
Donatello (disputatio) 01:39, 28 Octobris 2012 (UTC).
replies: text: Puto rectior esse forma gynaecoides, ex Graeco γυναικ- + -οειδης. Lesgles (disputatio) 14:51, 4 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :Ah, nunc video Wimpum sic id iam mutavisse. Lesgles (disputatio) 14:55, 4 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ginoides