Talk:Hakea petiolaris

3 sub species

found ref to fit from asgap SatuSuro 12:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Haegi's lack of reference to the nominative

@Wimpus: Why would including the nominative form a genitive listed in a source be a "misrepresentation of the source" a sentence can include auxiliary information not in a reference. Included θρίξ in a separate sentence when we've already defined hair as trichos makes it sound like trichos is Greek but not ancient Greek or something... its just not great wording. I see absolutely no reason not to condense that all into one sentence. if you're really worried about the second citation we can just remove it (it's not totally necessary) or move it right next to θρίξ to make it clear why that citation is there. –Skoulikomirmigotripa (talk) 19:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

We do not know whether the genitive form is intended as genitive form or as nominative form. Haegi writes: "The epithet from the Greek trichos, a hair and phyllon, a leaf, refers to the characteristically persistent appressed pubescence of the leaves, giving them a grey sheen at flowering time."

The translation "a hair" implies that trichos is intended as nominative case, instead of a genitive case ("of a hair") (I am ignoring that an article like ἡ or τῆς is missing). But one could argue, that this author might use deliberately the genitive case (to show the consonant of the stem, as used in compounds) and gives subsequently and deliberately a translation for the nominative case. But for another name, Hagei writes: "The epithet is a substantive, from the Greek prefix an- (without) and aden, -os (a gland)," in which both the nominative and genitive case are given. Given other lapsus by Haegi in the same source, like "The epithet, from the Latin graniticus granite and -cola, -dweller," for graniticola (graniticus is an adjective and graniticus + -cola would lead to graniticicola, instead of graniticola), my gut-feeling is that Hagei might not be fully familiar with all the linguistic issues and mixes a few things up. So, we can not reliably assess that Hagei intended trichos as genitive case, just as we do not know whether in this Wiki-lemma: "The genus name is a feminine combination of the Greek ektatos, meaning "extended" ... and tricha meaning "hair".", the ancient Greek accusative case τρίχα , the modern Greek nominative case τρίχα, or the Latinized Greek word-forming element -tricha (Latin feminine of Greek -τριχος/ον, as in ἄτριχος/ον) is intended.

The reason I wrote "Greek" instead of "ancient Greek" for Haegi's etymology, is that I can not reliably assess whether modern or ancient Greek is intended. As Haegi uses "Greek" for "from the Greek prefix an- (without) and aden, -os (a gland),", that clearly shows "ancient Greek" ἀδήν and not "modern Greek" αδένας, it seems likely that Haegi is using "Greek" for "ancient Greek", but due to Haegi's erratic etymological explanations, we can not reliably assess what Haegi is intending. Wimpus (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

It is better to mention those separately. It would be less confusing to state: "Haegi actually provides the genitive case instead of the nominative case, while Haegi's translation corresponds to a nominative case", but that would be difficult to source (as we do not have a source explicitely mentioning the incorrect etymology of Haegi). Wimpus (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@Wimpus:

I welcome discussion on an edit but please DO NOT delete information without prior consensus, what you are doing is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Your continued tendentious viewpoint for deleting edits at best disruptive. I reiterate once again, my edits are not a lesson in Latin but basic information on a genus/species. Perhaps your knowledge of Latin of greater appreciation on those edits without etymology. The very common northern hemisphere genus Narcissus would be a splendid start for you, there are many species in need of etymology.Allthingsnative (talk) 08:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

In this edit I have added the original etymology of the describing author, that was conspicuously absent in earlier edits. User Skoulikomirmigotripa edit's were rephrasings, reshufflings of my edits here and here, creating the false impression for the reader that can not read the Greek script that with "according to Haegi from the Greek trichos (θρίξ[12], gen. τριχός; 'hair') and phyllon (φύλλον; 'leaf').[13]" θρίξ would be a Greek rendering of trichos, while it is actually thrix. Your revert seems nothing more like a pro-forma revert, while you are not engaging in this discussion. Wimpus (talk) 09:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)