Talk:Eremophila phyllopoda

Adding pseudo-Greek

Adding "Sharr gives the derivation as from the Greek phyllo- meaning "a leaf-" and podus, "a foot"." is confusing, as podus is clearly not Greek. Adding such information, while knowing that it is clearly not Greek, is clearly questionable. Wimpus (talk) 21:16, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Similar definitions are given by Stearn: phyll-: in Gk. comp., relating to leaves; phyllocephalus, with leafy heads. -podus (adj. A): in Gk. comp., -footed, -based.

@Wimpus: I'd suggest that questioning my motives for making an edit ("adding such information, while knowing that it is clearly not Greek, is clearly questionable") may get you into trouble. Your argument is weakened when you make personal attacks. "Play the ball, not the player, or you'll be sent off." Gderrin (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

A simple question: are you aware that podus is not Greek? Wimpus (talk) 22:15, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

In this context, my awareness matters less than what's in reliable sources. It's kind of like the difference between religion and science. I'm going with the science. Gderrin (talk) 23:05, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Science tells us that πούς is the Greek word for foot, not podus. So, you are aware that podus is not Greek? Wimpus (talk) 23:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

So, this is solved and the erroneous information from Sharr can be removed! Or do you think that Liddell & Scott have made a mistake by writing πούς instead of podus? Wimpus (talk) 23:25, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Sharr gives the etymology of phyllopoda in Eremophila phyllopoda. Lidell & Scott only give the Greek πούς. Using the latter is WP:OR. Gderrin (talk) 23:34, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

But you are not able to find podus in a Greek dictionary. Liddel & Scott are a far more higher authority with respect to what the word for foot is in Greek than Sharr. We shouldn't discuss such obvious mistakes. Denying that podus is not a Greek word, becomes utterly silly. Wimpus (talk) 23:43, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Wimpus, I am right, but so are you. If we can keep cool heads, I think we can solve the dilemma - we are almost at the nub of the disagreement. You are an expert in classical Greek, but as Alex George has said in his book "[w]hereas classical Latin is a dead language, botanical Latin is very much alive and kicking and has evolved to include a goodly smattering of Greek words - which are then 'forced' into behaving as Latin words instead of being declined in a Greek way, which can cause wincing, groans and horror in the Classical establishment." So, perhaps you can suggest how we can indicate what can be done so that experts like George, Short, Sharr and Stearn are acknowledged as correct when they have 'the Greek phyllo- meaning "a leaf-" and podus, "a foot"' (I can hear you groaning!) and Lidell & Scott are correct when they have πούς meaning "foot". It would save us both a lot of time and energy. Gderrin (talk) 00:29, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

"Greek words - which are then 'forced' into behaving as Latin words instead of being declined in a Greek way" are not Greek words, but Latinized forms of Greek words. Those Greek words became Latin words. Therefore you can not find them in a Greek dictionary. #I do agree with that.

In Calothamnus quadrifidus subsp. petraeus, as described by Alex George, George labels petraeus as Greek. This is however not a Greek word, but Greek petraios (πετραῖος) was "'forced' into behaving as Latin word" and became Latin petraeus, a Latin word that was used by Pliny the Elder in his Naturalis Historia. In case George would have labelled this word as "Latinized Greek", or "Latin, derived from Greek" (or a similar description) than his description would be consistent with the actual etymology. #I agree with that too - it is much the same as in the previous paragraph.

In the work of George, Short, Sharr and Stearn, the label "Greek" seems to be used in many cases for "Latinized Greek", or "Latin, derived from Greek", instead of "(ancient) Greek". When browsing Stearn, I always considered his glossary as providing word-forming elements that have a Greek origin and are presented the way they appear in a botanical Latin compound and not as they appear in an ancient Greek compound. So, mikros (μικρός) and phyllon (φύλλον) appear as micro- and -phyllus in a botanical Latin compound (microphyllus), while they appear as mikro- (μικρο-) and -phyllos (-φυλλος) in an ancient Greek compound (mikrophyllos μικρόφυλλος). Those elements micro- and -phyllus are therefore not ancient Greek, but New Latin. Merriam-Websters writes similarly: "History and Etymology for -phyllous: New Latin -phyllus, from Greek -phyllos, from phyllon leaf". Stearn might have wanted to help the interested layman in analysing a Latin botanical epithet and the botanist in coining a Latin botanical name, by using the form as the Greek elements appear in the botanical Latin compound. But for etymological purposes, labelling -phyllus as "Greek" falls short and seems inconsistent with other dictionaries. #I mostly agree with that too, although I don't think Stearn's book is just for an "intersted layman". Yes - it seems inconsistent, but that's the problem isn't it? I also note that Stearn says ος (as in -φυλλος) usually becomes -us (page 255) when transliterated.

Wimpus: In case we are transliterating Greek words on Wikipedia, we can transliterate φύλλον with phyllon and μικρόφυλλος with mikrophyllos. There is a transliteration tool, that gives us: phúllon and mikróphullos, which transliterates υ with -u-, instead of -y- and adds the diacritics. In English both u and y seems to be common transliterations (American Heritage Dictionary: phullon, Merriam-Webster's: phyllon). Stearn seems to refer with "transliteration" to "Latin transliteration", in which the Greek word is also adapted in certain cases to the Latin language by replacing the Greek ending -ος wit Latin us. I do think there is a fundamental difference between the common transliteration of μικρόφυλλος to mikrophyllos and the "Latin" transliteration of μικρόφυλλος to microphyllus. In the latter case, it effectively becomes a Neolatin word and we can not present microphyllus as Greek anymore, while mikrophyllos can easily be labelled Greek. A form as microphyllus has similarly a Latin declension, with a genitive microphylli, evidently different from the Greek genitive mikrophyllou (μικρόφυλλου). In case Merriam-Webster had utilized this form of transliteration "History and Etymology for -phyllous: New Latin -phyllus, from Greek -phyllos, from phyllon leaf" would have become: "History and Etymology for -phyllous: New Latin -phyllus, from Greek -phyllus, from phyllum leaf". Similarly, we can not label microphyll or microphyllous as Greek, but those are English words, derived from Greek. In case we would combine such a dictionary as Merriam-Webster and Stearn we have to be aware, that the label "Greek" in Merriam-Webster has to be interpreted differently from the label "Greek" in Stearn. Otherwise, we would incorrectly infer, that -phyllus is considered as New Latin by Merriam-Webster and Greek by Stearn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wimpus (talk • contribs) Sorry, but this seems to be a ramble that does not have a lot to do with what we were discussing. Can you add further comments at the bottom. It's becoming hard to follow the discussion. Gderrin (talk) 11:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I have tried to find clues in Stearn, that clearly indicates that he is using the label "Greek" in the sense of "Greek-derived", but I could not find a clear section describing his modus operandi. Similarly, I have checked Short and George, but it is similarly lacking such a clarification, although many word-forming elements that can be found in Short and George's glossary are merely elements that are Greek-derived as they appear as part of a botanical Latin compound. #In my edition of Stearn, (4th, pages 252-253) he has "There are, however, many botanical names which, although compounded of Greek words, form no part of ancient Greek." And later "[s]cientific names taken from any language other than Latin or formed in an arbitrary manner are treated as if they were Latin, regardless of their derivation" and "Greek words must be transliterated into Roman characters when used to form botanical names and epithets..." Sharr has "G Greek, usually ancient Greek."

We could decide to label the word-forming elements from Stearn and Short and George, not as "Greek", but as "Greek-derived", but we lack clear direct quotes from Stearn and Short and George, that in each single case, the label "Greek" can be interpreted as "Greek-derived". Similarly, Sharr and George seems to lack clear direct quotes to indicate that "Greek" is actually "Greek-derived", and "Greek" can also mean in certain instances "real (ancient) Greek" (as in "gamos", "lepis -idos", "loxos", "phleps phlebos"), instead of "Greek-derived". Additionally, Sharr and George seems to be mistaken in certain cases, as choru is clearly not a real Greek word (nor a Latinized Greek word) and podus (without a hyphen) seems similarly a lapsus. A Latinized version of Greek πούς, genitive ποδός would be pus, genitive podis. #Would it be satisfactory then to have "derived from Greek" (rather than) "from ancient Greek" for all the relevant articles? I agree with that choru in Sharr seems strange - I am trying to make contact with the editor Alex George for a clarification. It differs from the spelling in his Primer of Botanical Latin.

In case we want to use such sources, we have to make certain assumptions (that are dubious given the ambiguity in numerous cases and the lack of direct quotes) and we have to check constantly whether such a source as Sharr and George is not making mistakes. Wimpus (talk) 01:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC) #Seems to me that "in Gk. comp.," means "derived from Greek".

Wimpus - thank you very much. We seem to be making some headway. I am not clear on what you are proposing though. Your contribution here is quite long. I hope you will not mind if I intersperse my comments (in colour) after each paragraph. Can we agree that where the epithet is said by an author to be "from the Greek", the Wikipedia article should have "derived from the Greek"? Gderrin (talk) 11:09, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

The critical question

It seems that the critical question is "How do we reconcile reliable, respected sources for botanical Latin, such as Stearn, George and Sharr who have phrases like '-podus (adj. A): in Gk. comp., -footed, -based' (Stearn)', 'pod-, podo-, -podus (adj A, in Gk comp.) foot' (George) or 'phyllopodus: G phyllo- a leaf- + podus a foot' (Sharr) with reliable, respected Greek dictionaries such as Liddell & Scott A Greek–English Lexicon that have 'pous' (πούς) meaning foot.'?" (I am unable to quote precisely from Liddell & Scott as I don't have it.) Gderrin (talk) 01:34, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I tried to explain that it is actually quite difficult to reconcile certain sources, in case we do not have a direct quotes from sources like Stearn, George and Sharr that the forms that are labelled as "Greek" are actually intended as "(New) Latin forms that are Greek-derived". In case a source seems to be quite consistent and in each single case there is no doubt that actually "(New) Latin, derived from Greek" is intended, we could use such a source, but in case a source, is also making certain mistakes that put actually doubt on the consistency of such a source, we should be very carefull in using such a source. The examples I have seen from Sharr, like podus (written without a hyphen) makes my brain hurt as I can not explain, what is intended. There is no New Latin word podus, derived from Greek πούς (Liddell & Scott is available online: see here) and a comparison to Stearn might indicate, that Sharr forgot to write a hyphen. And in microtheca, Sharr refers to theca as Greek, while he is using the classical Latin form theca instead of the ancient Greek form θήκη, while in gamophylla, he prefers to use the ancient Greek form gamos (γάμος), instead of a Latinized form gamus. For glaucophyllus, Sharr labels glaucus as 'Latin" (cf. Greek γλαυκός) and not as "Greek", while -phyllus is labelled as Greek. One could argue that Greek γλαυκός was borrowed by the Romans in Latin as glaucus (that might warrent the label "Latin"), but we can find similar classical Latin examples for -phyllus/(a)/um, like melisphyllum and (forms that show a more Greekish ending in classical Latin), like carpophyllos, melamphyllon, leptophyllon. In Sharr, we do not know, when he is using the label "Greek" whether he is referring to "(new) Latin derived from Greek" or to "actual (ancient) Greek" and whether the label "Latin" is used to indicate a different origin than the label "Greek" in certain case. In each single case, we have to use other sources to check what might be intended. So, as Stearn seems more consistent, we could use Stearn (additionally), but Sharr seems to be difficult to reconcile with more consistent sources. Wimpus (talk) 10:46, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

That's all interesting, but not helpful in seeking a resolution. I know it's difficult. Can we try again please? How can we reconcile Stearn (-podus (adj. A): in Gk. comp., -footed, -based) with Liddell & Scott ('pous' πούς meaning foot.)? Gderrin (talk) 11:02, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

In case I would combine those sources, I would write something like: "In ancient Greek, the word for "foot" is pous (πούς), that can appear as -podus/a/um in botanical Latin compounds, like phyllopoda." Wimpus (talk) 11:17, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Possibly, but readers of plant articles may want to know where "phyllopoda" comes from, not that the word for "foot" in Greek is pous (πούς). Why did Stearn write a book about botanical Latin when we must qualify the meanings he gave? Is he wrong? Is the plant called Eremophila phyllopoda because the Greek word for "foot" is pous? Gderrin (talk) 11:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I did not intend to write a full etymology of phyllopoda. I only want to demonstrate how you can (in general) combine Liddell and Scott with Stearn. In this specific case of phyllopoda, we should stick to the erroneous explanation of Chinnock and additionally cite Liddell and Scott and Lewis and Short. Using Sharr here only complicates the etymological explanation. Wimpus (talk) 11:39, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

We do not only have a problem with Eremophila phyllopoda. Why, in your opinion, can we not use Stearn without qualification, here and in other plant articles? Gderrin (talk) 11:53, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Usage of Stearn is preconditioned on some kind of consensus that his label "Greek" could/would actually refer to "Greek-derived" in certain cases.

Please explain in this specific case (phyllopoda), how Stearn could further explain/clarify the etymological derivation of Chinnock.

I always try to explain to my students, that when they discuss various theoretical models/sources they have to make clear, what the similarities and what the differences are and whether, despite the "differences" in terminology" or "phrasing", certain sources are actually conveying the same message or are not necessarily incongruent. In case I would explain for example that "source X derives phyllopoda from ancient Greek pous (πούς), while source Y claims that it is derived from New Latin -podus/a/um" I seem to create an incongruency between those two sources, while actually I can not rule out, that they are fully compatible. Wimpus (talk) 12:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is not good enough. We are not considering "various theoretical models/sources" here. How do we reconcile Stearn with Liddell & Scott? That is the simple question confronting us. What is the derivation of phyllopoda, citing Stearn (surely the ultimate authority for botanical Latin) that we can use as a model for all plant articles? There is no rush. Please take your time. I will not fire back for at least 5 hours. "The specific epithet, (phyllopoda) is derived from ....." Gderrin (talk) 13:17, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

No, I disagree. In case you want to write a piece and you want to use multiple sources, you can not simply concatenate the information of various sources. You have to integrate the various sources, but still have to make clear which information is derived from which source. But, in case you want to use Stearn in this specific case, you have the following problems:

1. Stearn does not seem to mention the full compound phyllopodus/a/um. Might not be a problem, in case you only want to discuss only parts of compounds.
2. It is difficult to extract from Stearn from which Greek word he derives -podus. Stearn (1983, p. 486): "-podus (adj. A): in Gk. comp., -footed, -based". Stearn (1983, p. 274): "Foot: see Podion". Stearn (1983, p. 278): "Podion (ποδιον, n.): foot e.g. of a vase." Based on these quotes, one could easily think that -podus is derived from Greek πόδιον, but Liddell and Scott shows that adjectives on -ποδος, like ἄποδος and τετράποδος are variants of forms on -πους, like ἄπους and τετράπους, that seems to be derived from the noun πούς and not from πόδιον (See Clements, 1902, p. 22/342). Stearn does not seem to clearly indicate the origin of -podus, so it is difficult to counter Chinnock's erroneous claim that poda is the Latin word for "foot", based on the information as can be found in Stearn (although one could add, that the common Latin word for "foot" in botanical Latin is pes according to Stearn).

Wimpus (talk) 14:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I rest my case. I am prepared to accept that Liddell & Scott have "pous (πούς) is Greek for foot" but editor Wimpus is not prepared to accept that Stearn and others, have "-podus is Greek for -footed". Neither is editor Wimpus able to suggest a derivation for "phyllopoda" that is anything other than original research. Both the author Chinnock, and Sharr, give the derivation of the full compound. Gderrin (talk) 19:32, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Additional information

Stearn, in "Botanical Latin" and Short in "A Primer of Botanic Latin" use the abbreviation "in Gk. comp." (as for phyll-). "Gk." is an abbreviation for "Greek" and "comp." for "compound words". The abbreviation "(adj. A)" (as for -podus) in Stearn and Short is an abbreviation for "adjective Declension A". (Page 60 in Stearn, page 22 in Short.)

In the International Code of Nomenclature (the Shenzhen Code), a compound is a name or epithet that combines elements derived from two or more Greek or Latin words.

Article 60.10 of the Code has "Adjectival epithets that combine elements derived from two or more Greek or Latin words are to be compounded as follows: A noun or adjective in a non-final position appears as a compounding form generally obtained by -

• (a) removing the case ending of the genitive singular (Latin ‑ae, ‑i, ‑us, ‑is; transcribed Greek ‑ou, ‑os, ‑es, ‑as, ‑ous and its equivalent ‑eos) and
• (b) before a consonant, adding a connecting vowel (‑i- for Latin elements, ‑o- for Greek elements).

The implication of this, is that the Greek word phyllon becomes phyllo- in the non-final position in compounds.

Recommendation 60G.1. of the Code has "A name or epithet that combines elements derived from two or more Greek or Latin words should be formed, as far as practicable, in accordance with classical usage, subject to the provisions of Art. 60.10." The implication of this is that the Greek word for "foot" becomes -poda to conform to classical (Latin) usage.

(Sharr omits the abbreviations mentioned above for simplicity's sake. The latest edition of his book gives the derivation of 12,600 Western Australian taxa, including genera, species and subspecies.) Gderrin (talk) 06:23, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

A suggestion

@Wimpus: Two derivations of phyllopoda in the name Eremophila phyllopoda are available - one by Robert Chinnock, the other by Ali Sharr. Sharr's definition matches the derivations given in Stearn and Short for phyll- and -podus. The problem is, as you say, that podus is not Greek, but it is derived from Greek and treated as part of a compound meaning "-footed". My suggestion is to give the derivation of phyllopoda as - "...derived from Greek words meaning "leaf" and "-footed". In general, where epithets are derived from Greek, similar words could be used. For example, in the case of Melaleuca adenostyla, "... derived from Greek words for "gland" and "style". Gderrin (talk) 06:23, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

But Sharr seems to write "podus" without a hyphen. So, Sharr seems to make a mistake. And leaving out the actual words or word-forming elements, does not seems clarify the actual origin of phyllopoda. Wimpus (talk) 15:31, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

References