Language desk
< April 12	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 14 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 13

Latin for lava or magma

I'm trying to figure out or invent a possibly acceptable Latin term for "lava" or "magma". According to Merriam-Webster, Oxford English Dictionary/Lexico, and Dictionary.com, the word lava comes from Italian (specifically a Neopolitan dialect), which in turn is descended from the Latin lābēs ("a fall or sliding down"), lābī/lābor ("to slide"), or lavāre ("to wash"). However, Wiktionary (and Online-latin-dictionary.com, but I chiefly searched in Wiktionary) seems to suggest that there is no native Latin word for "lava", and that the borrowing of lava from Italian is considered part of New Latin. It even considers a latinisation of the ancient Greek ῥύαξ (rhyax) as a possible synonym. The same case is for "magma", in which it was simply borrowed directly from the ancient Greek μάγμα (mágma, "paste/kneaded material") and carried over the literal meaning. I tried looking at "igneous", but in Latin the equivalent word simply means "fiery" or "on fire" and is no different from ignifer.

So what I want to ask is, if I were to literally describe "viscous molten rock" as a Latin term, what would be acceptable or at least passable and somewhat understood? I guess if I want to be really simple-minded and literal, I could say rīvī ignium ("rivers of fire"), rīvī Vulcānī (Vulcanus's rivers), fluvius ignifluī/flūmen igniferī ("burning current"), or perhaps igniferī argentum vīvum ("burning mercury", since mercury is a liquid metal in its natural state, and lava/magma in a sense is literally liquid metal and rock)

Any suggestions would be nice. --72.234.12.37 (talk) 00:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here’s one idea: take the term that Pliny the Younger used in his famous description of the eruption of Vesuvius in a letter to Tacitus (6:16 here), even if it’s not quite unambiguous that the intended word was lava. I believe the phrase that might work is in the sentence “Jam navibus cinis incidebat, quo propius accederent, calidior et densior; jam pumices etiam nigrique et ambusti et fracti igne lapides; jam vadum subitum ruinaque montis litora obstantia” where one source at least translates igne lapides as “burning rock”. Now there are lots of actual Latin speakers here, however, so hang on to see if one of them corrects this translation - and they can probably get it into the right case for you too. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 02:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's ambusti igne lapides ("rocks burnt with fire") that is probably being translated as "burning rock". Igne lapides ("rocks with fire") makes no sense by itself. Deor (talk) 03:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In Book 1, line 473, of the Georgics, Virgil uses liquefacta saxa ("molten rocks") for what flows from Etna. Deor (talk) 02:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cassell's New Latin Dictionary says of English lava, "render by phrase", giving examples "massa ardens" and "saxa liquefacta". By the way in the passage from Pliny, "igne lapides" is not actually a phrase -- it refers to rocks which have been broken and burned and blackened by fire, and the words "igne lapides" correspond to "rocks...by fire" in this. AnonMoos (talk) 03:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The most likely parsing, I think, is to read the noun phrase as ((ambusti et fracti) igne) lapides – rocks ((burnt and broken) by fire), while nigri, not a perfect passive participle in need of an agent, modifies pumices. --Lambiam 08:44, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lambiam -- You're right. The phrase "pumices nigri" confusingly has three modifiers ("jam...etiam...-que"), so I basically ignored all of them in my rough-and-ready on-the-fly translation...

-- AnonMoos (talk) 22:57, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My Dutch-Latin dictionary (Montijn, published in 1939) translates lava as: (as a liquid mass) saxa liquefacta (-orum, neuter, plural; lit. liquefied rocks); massa ardens (-ae, feminine; lit. glowing mass); (as a dry mass, after solidification) massa sulphurea (-ae, feminine; lit. sulphuric mass, which is scientifically not very accurate, as, although volcanoes are often associated with sulphur deposits, the sulphur is concentrated around vents of gas and hot water, not in the lava). I'd use saxa liquefacta.

Plinius may have been referring to volcanic bombs. Plinian eruptions produce a lot of gas and ash, but not so much lava. The Romans would have known about lava, as quite a lot of it is produced by Etna and Stromboli. They were not familiar with the internals of volcanoes, so no word for magma. PiusImpavidus (talk) 08:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But is the query for Classical or Modern Latin? 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 09:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The query is to invent a possibly acceptable Latin term. What would distinguish "a possibly acceptable Classical Latin term" from "a possibly acceptable Modern Latin term"? --Lambiam 16:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Less things for modern speakers than hypothetical Romans, arguably. But the point might be moot. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 18:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any kind of Latin would do, really. I figured most of the differences between classical and ecclesiastical or contemporary use Latin would be found more in speech patterns and enunciation than in the written form. --72.234.12.37 (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you dislike rhyax (as in rhyolite)? There are plenty of Latin terms derived from Ancient Greek, so if you don't mind indulging in alternative history, rhyax could have been one of them. Literally it means "stream" with "stream of lava" as an extended sense. (Not sure why we aren't just latinizing lava itself.) Card Zero (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Latin wikipedia has la:Lava, and provides a reference from 1738 (this may, however, just give the word from the Italian vernacular, dunno). But the OP asked for a "native Latin word", so it is not clear whether they're satisfied with that. --Wrongfilter (talk) 20:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The same article also mentions rhyax, as above, I see. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 22:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could this word be considered a slang term?

I saw this term pureblood in people who did not get the vaccine meaning that they are vaccine hesitant. I do not see the definition of pureblood being related to vaccination status in any dictionary or any reliable sources of information. I saw the definition of pureblood being relating to being unmixed ancestry only in dictionaries. According to Wiktionary, pureblood means A person or animal of unmixed ancestry. Would the term pureblood be considering a slang and/or jargon term when they use it to mean being unvaccinated? 47.145.106.209 (talk) 03:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Pureblood" has most recently been prominent as a negative term in the Harry Potter novels; not sure why people are eager to associate themselves with the Malfoys... AnonMoos (talk) 03:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. We have an article Limpieza de sangre which is also something that most people would not be eager to associate themselves with... AnonMoos (talk) 04:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the noble term pureblood seems negative in the Harry Potter novels, it is because they have been written from the biased point of view of a mudblood lover. --Lambiam 23:30, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a term being usurped for political posturing. I wonder how many of those "purebloods" also escaped normal childhood vaccines against polio, smallpox, etc. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is absolutely being used as an insulting term, directed at those who themselves are vaccinated. The term "pureblood" with regards to people has always been a term with clear racist overtones; that a person with pureblood had an ancestry unsullied by mixing with lesser races. Make no mistake that when the antivaxxers use the term, they are using it with very similar insulting meaning directed at people who are vaccinated; who are not "pureblood". --Jayron 32 11:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and various anti-Jewish conspiracies also spring to mind. Sounds pretty nasty. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 14:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly if one is persistent or tries hard enough, virtually any word can be reinterpreted, misconstrued, or made into a slang term with negative connotations. The rabid nature of the internet makes the task easier than ever. But on to the topic, I have seen my share of fictional works where "pureblood" is an insistent term spoken by characters who practice some form of eugenics. Daleks are one example that comes to mind. --72.234.12.37 (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a reinterpretation, misconstruing, or made slang. This is a term with a long, well-established racist connotation. This is not co-opting another word in a novel way, this is using a well-established term in the same way it was intended to be used. --Jayron 32 17:11, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Expletives rooted in religion

It's quite common, in at least Anglophone Western societies, for people use words such as "Jesus", "God", "Christ" or derivations as expletives - despite the injunction against it of the second commandment. Is this peculiar to English speakers from predominantly Christian backgrounds or is it more widespread? Are "Mohammed", "Buddha", "Krishna", etc. (or derivatives) used as expletives in Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc societies? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's an approved Arabic sentence A`udhu billahi min ash-shaitani r-rajimi which calls on God to protect against Satan. We used to have a separate article "Ta`wwudh" on this, but most of the articles on Islamic expressions were merged into other articles, which were then heavily edited, so I really couldn't tell you where, if anywhere, this sentence is discussed on Wikipedia now... AnonMoos (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Here's a link to the last version of the Ta`awwudh article before it was merged out of existence... AnonMoos (talk) 20:21, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even when interpreting the term generously, I fail to see how the phrase could be used as an expletive. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's an apotropaic phrase which serves some functions similar to what cursing would in some other cultures... AnonMoos (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Biblical command is somewhat more specifically not to take "the name יְהוָ֥ה‎, your God" in vain. "God" is not the Hebrew (or English) name of God. It is not obvious to me what "to take a name in vain" would have meant to a Hebrew speaker 25 centuries ago. The expression also occurs in Psalm 139, but again with the name of God as the object taken in vain. --Lambiam 23:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lambiam -- Unfortunately, the Hebrew-alphabet "word" you included actually combines the consonants of one word with the vowel points of a different word (technically it's a "Q're Perpetuum"), and can be misleading to those without detailed knowledge of Masoretic conventions... AnonMoos (talk) 22:54, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

wikt:हे tells us that हे भगवान (he bhagvān) is a phrase meaning "oh my God" in Hindi. Presumably Krishna is often implied, although without any need to get specific. Mandarin has wikt:天啊, which I think is literally "heavens huh!?" but also wikt:喔麥尬, which is just a loanword from English, "omaiga". More at wikt:oh my God#translations, which is only the tip of the iceberg of oaths and misses expressions such as wikt:Dio santo, wikt:perkele, and the curious Australian expression "bloody oath", which means "yes". Which reminds me of strewth (God's truth), zounds (God's wounds), and the rest of wikt:Category:English minced oaths. English went through a phase of producing quantities of these in the 16th c., which might have set our attitude to blasphemy on a unique course, i.e. we find it fun. Card Zero (talk) 01:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ពុទ្ធោ (Puttho) is a common Cambodian exclamation expressing disbelief, sorrow, regret, etc., used much like English "my god!". It is derived from the Pali (pronounced according to Khmer phonology) nominative singular of "Buddha". Thai also has พุทโธ่ (Phuttho), used similarly.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 01:29, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As well as the perkele noted above by Card Zero, Finnish also has the expletive jumalauta, lit. God help me. BbBrock (talk) 11:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was common in Rome to invoke lesser gods/demigods as an "Oh my god!" such as Hercle! or Edepol! Temerarius (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the Asterix albums, I believe Asterix is constantly uttering the oath "By Teutates", although the writer René Goscinny was known to be rather loose with actual historical facts... 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]