Jump to content

Talk:Dasymalla chorisepala

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Etymology

[edit]

Statements in Wikipedia with valid, published, peer-reviewed references, must not be removed, especially not with the edit summary "You must be kidding." That is the case, even if an editor does not agree with a statement. Even unreferenced material should not be immediately removed. I expect the material that was removed to be replaced, with corrections if necessary. I added the material from Sharr in good faith. The etymology of chorisepala is given in Sharr - "Western Australian Plant Names and their meanings" as follows:

chorisepalus: G choru separate, free + -sepalus -sepalled: Dasymalla.[1] Gderrin (talk) 10:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of leprophloia it became perfectly clear that Sharr was clearly mistaken. Can we trust Sharr in this instance? So, -sepalus would be Greek? As I have stated before, words on -us are Latin and not Greek. So, that puts again doubt on Sharr's etymology (or your interpretation). And is choru a Greek word for "separate, free"? I do not see any evidence in Greek lexica. Is it a typo? Or is it a uncommon transliteration of the Greek genitive χώρου (= "of space")? In case you do not know what you are adding, please do not add it (as in this case, it is non-sense). Wimpus (talk) 11:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And read also Stearn (1983, p. 40) for the term sepalum: "Sepalum (from σκεπη, covering) was coined by Necker in 1790 (Coroll. ad Phil. bot., 18, 30), undoubtly in an irregular manner (for scepalum would have been a better transliteration) ...". Sepalum is merely new Latin and not Greek (although loosely based on a Greek word). Why should we consider -sepalus as Greek, despite Stearn's etymology of sepalum, our own explanation in the lemma sepal and your labelling of sepalum as "New Latin" in several edits ([1], [2], [3], [4])? Wimpus (talk) 11:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to confuse Brown and Sharr. Brown mentions for choris: "Gr. choris, apart, asunder". "Apart" and "asunder" are adverbs. Gderrin uses this source for: "choris meaning "separate"". "Separate" is an adjective and "apart" and "asunder" are adverbs (although "asunder" can be an adjective too). Similarly, "choris" is also an adverb in Greek. However, Brown does not mention chorisepala, so Gderrin's assessments that chorisepala derives from choris and sepalum is merely original research. Sharr indicates that chorisepala would be derived from choru. But whether choru is real Greek or merely a typo is not clear. Wimpus (talk) 13:19, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I confused nothing. You asked Can we trust Sharr in this instance? In the edit summary you said Brown translates choris with apart, asunder: both adverbs. I gave my reasoning on why Sharr could be trusted based off that. If "choru" is a typo of "choris", that is an entirely different matter. My point is that "separate" is a reasonable translation. Gderrin's assessments that chorisepala derives from choris and sepalum is merely original research is true, when using Brown as a source. But since Gderrin added Sharr, a secondary source, that point is no longer relevant. But whether choru is real Greek or merely a typo is not clear. is a fair question, but I don't think it is enough of an objection to keep removing the sourced material. If you have issues with the source, take it to the reliable sources noticeboard. Then, if it is decided it is not a reliable source, your challenge is correct and the material can be removed. TelosCricket (talk) 16:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My objections are not only based on "choru", but also on "-sepalus" being Greek. This reference explains that French chorisépale is not derived from some kind of Greek "choru" and "-sepalus". Please notice, that it translates "choris" with séparément (=separately = adverb). Wimpus (talk) 17:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And? Gderrin replaced his OR with a source. You removed source material. You are claiming that the source is wrong. It may be. Take it to the reliable sources noticeboard. Or open an RfC TelosCricket (talk) 19:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In this specific instance, I have made perfectly clear, why the specific etymological information of Sharr for chorisepala is at odds with other sources. I do not have a copy of Sharr, so I have to rely on the quotes that Gderrin is giving me in each single instance. Wimpus (talk) 19:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"At odds with" does not mean wrong or unreliable. It is not sufficient to keep removing sourced material. "Choru" may be wrong, but it is sourced. You will have to demonstrate at the appropriate noticeboard that Sharr is an unreliable source to justify continual removal of sourced material. Or find another source that explicitly corrects Sharr. TelosCricket (talk) 20:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But it is so obvious that "-sepalus" can not be Greek, as it ends on "-us". Please see table 2 of Oren et al. (2015) that shows us that Greek words on -ος (second declension) are Latinized by using the ending -us. In -sepalus, the ending is clearly Latin, not Greek. Wimpus (talk) 21:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit of a strawman? chorisepalus: G choru separate, free + -sepalus -sepalled: Dasymalla.[1] only claims that "choru" is Greek. Granted, "is derived from the Greek choru meaning "separate" or "free" and -sepalus meaning "-sepalled" is ambiguous as to whether the reader should infer "-sepalus" is Greek or not. Still, though, it is sourced. If you think the source is wrong, then go to the relevant noticeboard. It is not justification to keep removing sourced material (unless you have another source that explicitly corrects Sharr). TelosCricket (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article has had the etymology of chorisepala and its reliable source[1] removed. Reliably sourced information should not be removed without consensus first. The etymology should be replaced without delay. Gderrin (talk) 01:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First you wrote:
That is clearly at odds with the etymology of Sharr. Choris is definitely not the same as the non-word choru and the labelling of sepalum as New Latin and -sepalus as Greek is fundamentally different. They can't be both right. So, did you added initially a false etymology? And how do you know that the etymology of Sharr isn't a false etymolgy? In the case of leprophloia it became perfectly clear that Sharr provided a false etymology. Or are you still convinced that leprosus is Greek? Wimpus (talk) 07:30, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And here, eventually you seemed to prefer "from the Greek ...thece meaning "a box""[3] instead of Sharr's "from the ancient Greek ... theca meaning "cover" or "case""[1] Was the etymology as provided by Sharr incorrect? And did you initially provided a false etymology? Wimpus (talk) 08:02, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wimpus: You have still not provided a justification for removing sourced material. Do not remove reliably sourced information without consensus. Gderrin (talk) 08:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The justification is that the sourced material is at odds with more reliable sources. Choru and -sepalus are not Greek. And now you can answer my questions! And please, do tell the truth. Wimpus (talk) 08:34, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ a b c d Francis Aubie Sharr (2019). Western Australian Plant Names and their Meanings. Kardinya, Western Australia: Four Gables Press. p. 162. ISBN 9780958034180. Cite error: The named reference "Sharr" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b Brown, Roland Wilbur (1956). The Composition of Scientific Words. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.
  3. ^ "Eucalyptus microtheca". Euclid: Centre for Australian National Biodiversity Research. Retrieved 13 November 2019.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dasymalla_chorisepala&oldid=1201369929"