Talk:Ophrypetalum

Removal of odōrātus

@Wimpus: As per our on going discussions, this is a great example of an instance where you did not need to the removal of this content was the wrong move, and where your edit description might trip the "bad faith edit" alarm in some editors' minds.

If I'm interpreting your thinking correctly. You removed the reference to odōrātus because it is primarily an adj and the article's sentence structure gives the implication that it is a noun. But the fact of the matter is that the article never tells you the word is a noun explicitly, and part of speech it is in Latin isn't particularly important to the casual reader interested in the etymology being explained here. With roughly the same amount of effort it took to delete this you could have improved it by rearranging the word order of the article's sentence, by adding a small text adj. in front of the Latin, or by simply linking to a source that would clarify:

• "...named it after the perfumed (odōrātus, in Latin) odor of its flowers"
• "...named it after the perfumed odor ( Latin adj. odōrātus) of its flowers"
• "...named it after the perfumed odor (odōrātus, in Latin) of its flowers"

In this particular case, it seems you might to actually be completely in the wrong as I'm finding multiple sources that do list odoratus as a noun. Regardless of this point though, this is a great example of a case where you removed factual information which, if anything, required only a minor edit to fix. –Skoulikomirmigotripa (talk) 17:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

There are two issues here at stake: first, odoratus is not the same as "odor", second, no source is provided. And actually third, the editor Gcopenhaver1 seems to have added information from other sources without mentioning them (I suspect Wiktionary given the macron on odoratus, but given certain mistakes also based on his own working knowledge; see also "named it after its big (grandi in Latin) flowers (florus in Latin)" (big = grandis (plural grandes), flowers = flores), "named it after the long, beautiful (κάλλος, kalós in Greek) tails (ουρά, ourá in Greek)" (Greek can not be found in source, incorrect transcription of κάλλος (and that is actually an s-stem noun instead of an adjective) and usage of modern Greek ουρά, instead of ancient Greek οὐρά (that is the singular "tail")). It seems odd to "repair" someone's unsourced edit, that could possibly be incorrect. Should we try to find a source for modern Greek οὐρά (as source for calliura) or for κάλλος as adjective? Maybe Gcopenhaver1 could shed some light on his modus operandi. Wimpus (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't know anything about these other example articles you've listed. In this article I repaired a removed reference to odoratus, because I could not figure out why it was removed. you give as a reason, "odoratus is not a noun meaning odor or perfumed odor" but a quick look at a Latin dictionaries such as Perseus show that it can be used as a noun and has definitions such as, "that has a smell, odorous, scented, sweet-smelling, fragrant; a smelling, smell". There may be reasons to remove this instead of finding a source for it, but because it isn't a noun in Latin, and isn't related to 'odor' or 'intense smell' are not the right reason.

You say above that there are two issues at stake that it's not the same as 'odor' and that there is no source. Unless something is controversial it usually shouldn't be removed for lack of citation, a citation should be requested or (especially if you are someone who knows a lot about the matter) a citation should be added. As for it not being the same as 'odor'... that's not a reason to remove it. The article doesn't say that odoratus is the Latin word for 'odor', it just uses the phrase 'perfumed odor' and then provides as comparison the Latin word odoratus there's nothing here saying this is a direct translation. If your goal is to improve listed etymologies on wiki, I don't understand why you would remove odoratus instead of adding a source, improving the sentence structure, and/or listing the word with a more appropriate Latin case ending. Do you still take umbrage with any of my three correction examples? They all seem to address the issue you have. –Skoulikomirmigotripa (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

(After edit conflict): And in case of odoratus, there is also a fourth-declension noun (u-stem) odoratus, gen. odoratus, that could in some instances be translated as odor, but it that seems unlikely as the fourth-declension noun odoratus can not easily morph into odoratum as in Ophrypetalum odoratum (except as accusative case). We need a source that deals specifically with the name Ophrypetalum odoratum. Wimpus (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

We can add Lewis and Short, but technically we do not know for sure whether the describing author (Diels) intended the adjective or the noun odoratus, although an adjective is far more likely (as explained earlier). We could wait for Gcopenhaver1's response. Wimpus (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Given the absence of a primary source, and as the current reference to odoratus doesn't delacre itself a reference to a noun or adj, I think the best course of action is to leave the word in the article (since it relation to odoratum is undisputed) and provide a reliable source like Perseus, or some other academic latin dictionary which provides readers with its parts of spech and definitions. –Skoulikomirmigotripa (talk) 19:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Howdy. Thanks for you comments on the article - particularly my Latin, which I'm always happy to have improved. In this case the ultimate primary source would be Ludwig Diels' 1936 article in Notizblatt des Botanischen Gartens und Museums zu Berlin-Dahlem. Unfortunately many German references from WW I, II and the inter-war period are now difficult to find and I haven't tracked down a copy of this one yet (but I'm still working on it). Instead, I relied on two subsequent descriptions (listed as references 4 & 5 in the article). In Verdcourt 1971 (ref #5) the flowers are described as scented. When I need help with Latin (as in this case) I use Botanical Latin by William Stern (4th edition), . As for the comments about Greek (not applicable to this particular article), my understanding from reading Stern's Botanical Latin is that due to the relatively small word stock of Latin as compared to Greek, botanists often Latinize Greek words when creating new binomials (see Stern's very helpful chapter 19 entitled Greek Words in Botanical Latin). This creates words that are neither classically Latin or Greek, but nonetheless have Greek roots which I endeavored to explain since it adds richness to appreciating the name of the plant - at least for me as a plant scientists 🙂. In these cases I also consulted with a colleague who professionally translates Latin and Greek to make sure I was going astray, but I'm certainly open to more help! I hope that helps.

Gcopenhaver1 (talk) 12:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)Gcopenhaver1

Dear Gcopenhaver1, thank you for your response. As it seems I could not find in-line references for the etymological information, I could not track down the etymological information as given between ( ). In case you would use Stearn, you should make a reference to Stearn. In my 1983-edition (sixth impression, 1990) Stearn writes (p 472): "oderatus (adj. A), odorifer (adj. A), odorus (adj. A): having a smell , usually sweet-smelling". Whether Diels meant the neutral "having a smell" or "sweet-smelling" can not be assessed by using Stearn alone (and could be sourced by an additional publication), although a translation would be useful, because in the present case, it is not clear, whether odoratus refers to "perfumed" (adjective)", "odor" (noun), "perfumed odor" (noun). Please take notice, that odoratus is also a fourth-declension noun, that means: "smelling", "smell", "odor".

In case you would use Stearn, please be aware that in Stearn, labels like "Gk" refer in most instances to Latinized Greek words or word parts, so "-phyllus" is not real Greek but a Latinization from Greek -φυλλος, as it appears in Greek compounds derived from φύλλον (=leaf), like ἄφυλλος (leafless). And florus does not mean "flower", but is a word-forming element (that has to be written with a hyphen, like -florus), as can be seen in compounds, that are derived from flos (=flower), like multiflorus (=abounding in flowers = many-flowered).

In case a colleague would point to a certain etymolgical origin or translation, it would be difficult to use such a "source", as published sources are required. So, try to find sources, when providing additional etymological information. Good luck, with kind regards, Wimpus (talk) 15:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Dear @Wimpus:, thanks for your continued feedback. I have added the Stearn reference to the explanation of the Latin binomial. I honestly wasn't sure if adding references to dictionaries (or dictionary-like works) was common practice on WP, but I'm certainly happy to add it in the future. Yes, I understand your point about Latinized Greek words - I think I said as much in my earlier reply 🙂 - in the future I'll write something like "Latinized form of Greek root" to be more clear. Yes, I always try to find citable sources. I was not trying to imply that I wanted to use my consultation with colleagues as a source, only to try and reassure you that I wasn't trying to run wild.

-cheers Gcopenhaver1 (talk) 15:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)GCopenhaver1

References