Talk:Classical compass winds

Six winds of Hippocrates

L.A. Brown in The Story of Maps wrote that "Hippocrates said there were six winds", but this article does not mention Hippocrates, who predates Aristotle. Binksternet (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hm. Hippocrates doesn't come up in any other secondary sources, and Brown doesn't seem to provide a reference (shame on him!). I have been digging through Hippocrates all evening, and I can only find two mentioned, and two insinuated (from a geographical angle; of course, he talks about sea breezes, desert breezes, mountain breezes, etc. in terms of their health effects, but those are generalized classes, not directional points). However, he does seem to mention solsticial points to form the boundaries of west-east winds (but not winds from those points themselves), so maybe in that respect one can say "six winds"? Perhaps that's what Brown means. In any case, just identifying solsticials makes it a pre-Aristotlean contribution deserving mention. I'll put him in. Walrasiad (talk) 03:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Possible Mistakes

In the section about the Vatican Table, it says: "There is also a significant new Latin name, Austroafricus, in place of Euronotus" But according to the table Austroafricus (SSW) replaced Libonotus, not Euronotus. This seems to make more sense since Eurus is elsewhere east (or SE) but never west. — Preceding

Also, in the section "The Mariner's Windrose" in the subsection about Diego Homem, it says: "Favonius or Zephyrus = Levante (W)" West elsewhere is "ponente" and it seems unlikely a Portuguese would make that mistake, especially since it also says that in his scheme: "Subsolanus or Eurus = Levante (E)"

unsigned comment added by 24.131.16.228 (talk) 07:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Fixed. Walrasiad (talk) 13:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Greek is a mess

I have not studied this specific subject, yet still the Greek used here seems to obviously be a hell of a mess; I've corrected it a bit inside the table. Still the whole article as far as Greek is concerned is still a mess, including the pictures. The most obvious errors are a. tonoi used instead of pneumata (e.g. ὰπαρκτίας), b. mixed Greek and Latin script inside the same word (e.g. νόtος) and c. arbitrary use of polytonic, monotonic, atonic, mixed systems (e.g. ιαπίξ, ὰπὸ της βoης). Moreover a. I don't know how the Vatican table reads but things like this IAΠYZ seem prima facie wrong (is this really how it's spelled therein?) and b. things like the former being read like this ιαπίξ certainly seem more so. Also, why no capitalisation of words in Greek (e.g. Boreas (βoρέας))? Why the transliteration of ypsilon as u (e.g. dusis)? Finally there is a mix of singular and plural number (e.g. Eurus (εΰρος) (variant Euronoti (εὺρόνοtοi))) without explanation.
If someone were to give me some context and some explanations, I would (try to) fix the whole article (excluding the images about which I can do nothing)...
Thanatos|talk|contributions 03:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• FYI Meterorologika Book 2, 363b (in English here, part 6):
  ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ Δ εὖρος· οὗτος γὰρ ἀπ' ἀνατολῆς χειμερινῆς πνεῖ, γειτνιῶν τῷ νότῳ· διὸ καὶ πολλάκις εὐρόνοτοι λέγονται πνεῖν.
  So may it be that Euronotoi-Euronoti refers to both Euros and Notos???
  Thanatos|talk|contributions 04:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your attentions and efforts. I wrote this article. I am not a scholar of classical Greek, and rely on reproducing how these transcriptions were printed in the sources. I took extraordinary care to ensure that the spellings are exactly as given in the references (even errors, as I want all the variants preserved). But evidently some things I miss, and am grateful for correction. Let me comment on your specific points:

• 1. Unfortunately, I remember having quite some difficulties reproducing diacritics in wiki text, and went temporarily with grave accents instead of pneumata for some cases (apeliotes, etc.) thinking to get back to fix it later when I figured out how.
• 2. I honestly have no idea how that "t" got in there. I think I wrote it by mistake, didn't notice and then just kept reproducing it by copy/paste.
• 3. Vatican table spellings are a mess, because the Vatican table is a mess in the original. The inscriptions are taken directly from the sources that read them, and that's how they reported the inscriptions were originally written. There are many obvious spelling errors, but those errors are in the original, so they need to remain. At least, until I can double-check their reading of the table with my own eyes, I have to go with what they report.
• 4. Greek names of winds aren't capitalized here, because they're not capitalized in the print editions of the original texts, nor in the secondary texts that discuss them. I'm actually going to insist on reversing your changes here. It needs to be lower-case. It may just be a custom of English, American, French, etc. writers and publishers, but that's how they invariably do it in the sources.
• 5. Don't know what to say about "dusis". That's simply how it was transcribed in the reference.
• 6. On plurals, yes it is off-putting. But that's how Aristotle wrote it, and I was just sticking to it exactly. I guess it wouldn't harm to singularize it, as that is what is meant. Walrasiad (talk) 04:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

EDIT: I see you spotted the Euronotoi/Euronoti reference. I am not sure how to read it. It can refer to both (plural), or to a (singular) combination of Eurus and Notus (as done by later writers). As I don't want to impose either interpretation, I left it as it was in the original and leave it to the reader to decide. Walrasiad (talk) 05:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

A scholar of classical Greek I'm also not; I'm just an ultra-nerdy Greek... :D
1.No problem.Can help if you want me to. EDIT: In case you're interested and for any future use here's a guide on how to do show on windows systems.
2.Fixable. Apart from the images that is. Can help, same as 1.
3.That's why I'm asking for the original spelling per se; the Vatican table spelling , that is.
4. I've already imagined that this would be the cause. It's a problematic convention. I know it's tricky but I would advise you not to do so(revert capitalisation by me); many things that are not capitalised in Greek sources, get capitalised nowadays even if/when quoting the Greek original source. In any case, if you chose to do so, then you would also have to not capitalise transliterations of Greek into the Latin(-esque) alphabet, don't you think???... ;-) I think it's better to stick to throughout capitalisation. In any case you could ask for the opinion of other people at e.g. the Wiki-Project on Greece and Rome. It might help...
5.Similar to 4, I won't bother you with analysing the rationale behind it(if you're interested you could start here and here); suffice it to say that it's also a tricky convention, which imo should be better dealt by simply using Ys(apart from Ys in diphthongs, that is...).
6.Yes that's how he wrote it but as you can see in the provided English translation, it may perhaps refer to be both Euros and Notos. So if this is true this needs changing cause Euronotoi wouldn't be a variant of SE, as stated herein, but a name for any relevant SE or S wind. Again I think it would help if we asked for the opinion of others.
PS.Thank you for your ultra-fast reply.
EDIT edit-conflict. On spotting the reference: I think we need the opinion of others...
Thanatos|talk|contributions 05:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

FYI: I've asked for help/comments. Thanatos|talk|contributions 05:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

On the Aristotle cite and the name euronotoi: it's true, Aristotle says this, out of his usual format, because he's reporting a popular expression: "it blows from the point of winter sunrise, neighbouring the south, hence it's often said that "the euronotoi [east-south winds] are blowing"." Other texts put the word in the singular, including Aristotle himself at another point, so I guess we can do so too. Andrew Dalby 12:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

It is definitely a comment on popular usage. Remember, Eurus used to be an East wind in the archaic Homeric system, so "Euronotus" would be a natural archaic way of saying "southeast", just combining the words east and south. But Aristotle has moved Eurus to the SE position, essentially claiming Homer had it wrong, that Eurus is really a SE wind, and it is Apeliotes that is the E wind, so it is proper to refer to the SE wind simply as Eurus, and not resort to some improper "Euro-Notus" hybrid that might have been informally used before. The plural may be inclusive of other hodge-podge popular word combinations ("Noto-Euros", "Potameo-Notus") to combine E and S, or any other popularly-invented term constructed for the purpose. i.e. Aristotle seems merely to be saying: "Homer was wrong. The SE wind has a proper name, Eurus, let's stop using these silly hybrids".

So the term "euronotoi" may just be shorthand for "all east-south hybrids" (inclusive of other popularly-invented terms for SE that might not be clearly hybrids), and not specifically any particular one. The proper name "Euronotus" is only clearly a distinct singular wind in Timosthenes (for SSE, not SE).

Of course, that's just my interpretation, and not his actual words. It is ambiguous, and I am not sure I want to impose an interpretation, claiming he recognized the exact singular "Euronotus". Walrasiad (talk) 14:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

However one may interpret the name(s) and the passage(s), I think that some kind of explanation and citation is needed here. It's in plural, it sticks out; whoever were to read this knowing Greek, would be puzzled; granted there are not so many of us any more, yet still... :) Thanatos|talk|contributions 00:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

@Thanatos666

• I would appreciate help on 1. I can certainly do 2 myself. The images might take a little longer, as I have to find the original photoshop files in my mess of hard-drives.
• 4: On capitalization: this I am extremely reluctant to concede. There is common usage, invariable in the sources, and it needs to be followed here. If uniform treatment is imposed, it would be to make them all lower-case, not all upper-case (customary English orthography demands cardinal points in lower-case, e.g. "You go north" and not "You go North".) I have skirted the English rule because these are, in this context, also proper names for winds. But in treating the Greek names I don't want to invent new things without precedent, when there is already in place a consistent usage in all texts. The names of the Greek winds have to be lower case Greek script, and only become capitalized when transcribed to Latin script. Walrasiad (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Done 1,2,5 plus some other additions/corrections, except from capitalisation on which I ask the input of others. Proofreading by others would also be welcome; I may have missed something or erred somewhere.Thanatos|talk|contributions 00:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Big Dipper

In the sentence on Homer's mention of Ursa Major, three English names were added: wagon/wain and Big Dipper. I took out "Big Dipper" because that doesn't have anything to do with what the Iliad says. Since there are lots of names for this constellation, we really just need a link to the article about it (and that's fine, the link already exists). Anyone who doesn't understand, e.g., "Ursa Major" can just click on the link to find other English names. I left "wagon/wain" because the Iliad does use a name of this kind.

There's another problem: the link for the Greek text goes to a Google Books page. This is no use any more because someone's fixed up with Google Books to sell a reprint, so the free text has been taken offline. In general, since this will often happen (and probably each time we add links to Google Books texts we make it happen quicker!) it's best to use Google Books as a very last resort. I didn't correct this footnote, because I don't know if there's any general guidance somewhere about text links. One could link to Perseus; there are also editions that will remain free at archive.org. Andrew Dalby 12:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Fine on the first.

On your second point, I take it you are not in the United States? Unfortunately, and I learned this only recently, Googlebooks adjusted its "international" wall to prevent readers in Europe from accessing it, but it is till perfectly accessible to readers in the US. It has to do with variations in copyright law, and Gbooks trying to protect itself from lawsuits. Although US and Europe have the same length of copyright (Life + 70 years), US copyright law has a "memory barrier" so that copyright law applies only to books printed after 1924, whereas the EU law didn't introduce any such initial statutory starting point. As a result, Googlebooks introduced different accessibility in different zones. Readers with an American IP (or proxying an American IP) can read any book printed up to 1924, whereas readers in Europe can only access books up to 1872. Any book printed after that is blocked in Europe, but not blocked in the US. (Canadian readers can access it up to 1890 IIRC - as Canadian copyright law is shorter (Life + 50); maybe Australia too). It's a bummer. I only became aware of the difference when I went abroad recently. I took a lot of care to link internally to the exact pages in original sources in Googlebooks that are perfectly accessible to everyone in the US, not realizing Europeans and others abroad might not be able to.

Let me leave these for now. I am not sure it is worth the trouble to re-link to the equivalents in archive.org, since archive.org frequently uses the text derived from Googlebooks. It might be only a matter of time before Gbooks requires Archive.org to adhere to the same policy, and these will also be pulled away from European IP readers. Walrasiad (talk) 14:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Walrasiad, I never guessed that was the reason. I'm in France, as it happens. You're right, in that case, the same might happen to archive.org.

Yes, that explanation fits beautifully. The English translation you linked to is dated 1867, and I can see it. Andrew Dalby 16:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Misspelling?

I don't think we should say that Theophrastus misspelled the word "Thracias". Aristotle nicknamed him theophrastos, divinely spoken, because he was pretty good at Greek :) We probably don't know whether Theophrastus himself, or a later scribe, used this spelling: if he really did, I think we should assume he had a reason. Andrew Dalby 12:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't a comment on his Greek skills. Just that the name was mispelled in his text (worth noting, as that spelling error was replicated by some later writers, he has the "honor" of originating it). I guess that can be put a little more generously. :) Walrasiad (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Angles

In case it wasn't clear in the text, there are no definite angles between the Classical winds. In the tables, I imposed the nomenclature of a modern 8-wind rose on a 12-wind system as a simple device, as a way to compare how wind names changed across different Classical sources. I emphasized in the text this was for convenience, that nothing about the angles is implied by the use of the modern terms. If anything, as also mentioned in the text, the likelihood is that they are equally-spaced (from the position of Athens), and the diagrams are drawn that way. So there may seem to be a little inconsistency between the diagrams (equally spaced 30-degree angles between all winds) and the tables (which imply 45 degree differences between some winds, 22.5 between others). The diagrams are probably more accurate than the tables. Now, some authors use my method of representing them, but other authors prefer to stick to equal spacing by using half-winds only (so instead of the sequence N, NNE, NE, E, as we have in our tables, they instead goes N, NNE, ENE, E, i.e. the ordinal wind (NE) is omitted). While the NNE/ENE is more accurate way of representing 12-wind systems, it makes it harder to compare with 8-wind systems of, say, Eratosthenes or the Tower of Winds, and the absence of ordinal winds might be a little surprising to readers. Nonetheless, if consistency between tables and diagrams is required (in case readers overlook the cautions in the article text), then I would prefer to change the tables and remove the ordinals and use ENE & NNE instead. The diagrams should stay equally-spaced. — Walrasiad (talk) 16:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC).

Alright Walrasiad. I do think consistency between tables and diagrams is required because it is more accurate, and what surprised me was this inconsistency (the absence of ordinal winds wouldn't be bothering since this is a different system). Consistency should be the priority. So yes, could you change the tables and use ENE & NNE instead, please? — Maggyero (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC).

Big problem in Biblical Hebrew

In the majority of cases, etymologies in Semitic languages proceed by triliteral roots, and kedem from root q-d-m (ק׳ד׳מ, basic meaning "in front", "to be prior") cannot and does not derive from edom from root ʔ-d-m (א׳ד׳מ, basic meaning "to be red")... AnonMoos (talk) 00:17, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

When do these winds blow?

I think some info on seasonality would be useful. In particular I'm interested in Iapyx in this respect (in Horace Ode 3.27).

You are not right in saying that the difference between apheliotes and apeliotes involves a spelling mistake [added later: oh, did I misread it, or have you since edited it?]. Originally Apeliotes was the Ionic form of Apheliotes ("from the sun, Helios", i.e. the East). Ionic is internally psilotic. This means, inside words there is no aspiration. So we get "Horus" (i.e. initially aspirated), but "Etos" (for ethos). The Attic spelling Apheliotes, Latinised as Apheliota, is used by Catullus, 26.3, among others. In fact the article seems riddled with charges of misspelling, but you are not very specific about which ones are misspelt. Are you only referring to the Greek inscriptions? In which case, what's wrong with ΑΠΑΡΚΙΑϹ? Is it that you don't recognise the final letter as a lunate sigma? But lots of the others have one, so I'm mystified. Vince Calegon (talk) 13:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Boreas

Look at Turkic Bora/Boran < Mongolian Borugan The similarity is startling. There is a Persian word bārān باران and again a similar word to Turkish and Greek ones. Turkic bor/boz a kind of gray.UzunbacakAdem (talk) 10:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC) Uzunbacak Adem