Talk:Eucalyptus scoparia
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Wimpus in topic Etymology of "scoparia"
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
Etymology of "scoparia" edit
The Euclid site (Centre for Australian National Biodiversity / CSIRO) gives the etymology of scoparius as follows: "Origin of Name - Eucalyptus scoparia: Latin scoparius, broom-like, allusion obscure".[1] Roland Wilbur Brown in his book "Composition of Scientific Words" gives "scoparius, m. sweeper" as a derivation of "L. scopa, f. thin twigs, broom."[2] There does not appear to be any contradiction between the two sources.
References
- ^ "Eucalyptus scoparia". Euclid: Centre for Australian National Biodiversity Research. Retrieved 20 July 2019.
- ^ Brown, Roland Wilbur (1954). Composition of Scientific Words. R.W. Brown. p. 167. Retrieved 20 July 2019.
- These is a contradiction. Broom-like is an adjective, sweeper could be a nomen agentis or a nomen instrumenti (=noun). In case you would be more familiar with Latin, you would probably know, that the suffix -arius is a suffix to denote agents. The translation sweeper, without further explanation, is a bit ambiguous, as it could denote an agent (that sweeps), but also an instrument (that sweeps). But it is clearly a noun. The suffix -arius is also used in Latin as adjectival suffix. The translation broom-like would refer to -aria as adjectival suffix, not to -arius as suffix for nomina agentis. Wimpus (talk) 12:40, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- I agree - "broom-like" is an adjecive. So let's leave the Latin words out and just quote the CANBR source. Just a reminder though, I do not need to be familiar with Latin. I only need to quote valid sources. If you think CANBR is wrong, I'm sure they would be pleased to hear from you. Their contact details are here Gderrin (talk) 13:23, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- No, I do not agree. Wikipedia is not only about quoting valid sources. On Wikipedia:Quotations: "Quotations are a good way to comply with the no original research policy but must be used with care." and on another page: "Editors should generally summarize source material in their own words" In that case, you should have to understand what is actually written. In case you are using Brown, you have to be familiar with such terms as declension or genitive. Nowhere in Brown you can find an explanation in layman's terms of these concepts, although, if you are not familiar with such terms (and Brow uses such terms, to explain how to use his dictionary), you make mistakes such a misidentifying genitive cases (for nominative cases), that you have done repeatedly. Similarly, I can not reliably use an English dictionary, if I am not familiar with the difference between adjective, noun and verb. Wimpus (talk) 14:03, 20 July 2019 (UTC)