This entry was discussed in the Beer parlour; here is the discussion that ensued:
EncycloPetey and I have recently been discussing how to present derivation information in etymologies; we have yet to come to agreement. User talk:EncycloPetey#equison etymology and User talk:EncycloPetey#Unresolved discussion contain the discussion thus far. For convenience, I copy them hereto in the following rel-tables:
Hi EP. I don't see what useful purpose your reversion serves. As I said in my edit summary to justify the inclusion of equīsōn- in the derivation, "It's best to include the stem, since it's unclear otherwise why the English word ends in 'n' whereas the lemma of its Latin etymon lacks it." The OED gives the etymology as [ad. L. equīsōn-em groom, stable-boy, f. equus horse.] It is clear to me that equison derives from neither the nominative singular form of its Latin etymon equīsō nor its accusative singular form equīsōnem, but rather that it was adopted as the stem, sans any case ending. If English adopted either of those inflexions, we'd have *equisones in the plural, and very probably *equisoes or *equisonems, too. This is how Latin nouns are adopted into English in an Anglicised form by the Classically aware — the stem is adopted, not the nominative singular, which allows the noun to be treated as an ordinary English one, with no vestige of Classical inflexion. (As you'll know, verbs are similarly treated, with their Anglicised forms tending to be modelled on the stems of the perfect passive participles of their Latin etyma.) This is not common knowledge that you can expect our readers to know. Moreover, neglecting this detail leads to inaccuracy. For example, there is a difference in derivation between tripus and tripod: Ultimately, both derive from the Latin tripūs, itself a derivation of the Ancient Greek τρίπους (trípous); however, whereas for tripus, that is the end of the story, for tripod, it is more accurate to state (as the OED does) that the English noun is modelled on the Latin stem tripod-. Now please, for the sake of clarity and accuracy, allow the stem to be noted in the etymology. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 14:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
- Re: "It is clear to me that equison derives from neither the nominative singular form of its Latin etymon equīsō nor its accusative singular form equīsōnem, but rather that it was adopted as the stem," And that is precisely why we shouldn't list the stem in the etymology. The OED's etymology has incorrectly led you to believe that the stem was adopted and used rather than the word, which is incorrect. Etymologies that trace the development of words through phantom "stems" lead to erroneous views of how the etymology progressed. That isn't how the word entered English, and we should not mislead our readers into thinking that it is so. I honestly have no idea why the OED chose the accusative for their etymology, unless that is their house style for derivation of words from third-declension Latin nouns. Other dictionaries do not use the accusative; some prefer the ablative. Wiktionary uses the nominative, and so that is a second reason why the lemma nominative should appear in the etymology. Please do not introduce misleading etymologies. --EncycloPetey 14:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
- Addendum: I have corrected the etymology of tripod, which comes from a collateral form of the noun, and not from tripus. --EncycloPetey 14:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
- I checked all 25 of the general-use OneLook dictionaries that list tripod and none of them agree with you that it derives from the nominative (or accusative or vocative) plural form tripodēs. These are the derivations variously suggested:
- Latin tripūs, tripod-, from Greek tripous, three-footed: tri-, tri- + pous, foot
- < Latin tripod-, stem of tripus < Greek tripous "three-footed" < pous "foot"
- Middle English, from Latin tripod-, tripus, from Greek tripod-, tripous, from tripod-, tripous, adjective, three-footed, from tri- + pod-, pous foot
- Formerly tripode…from Latin tripus (tripod-), from Gr. τρίπους (τριποδ-), three-footed, having three feet or three legs; as a noun, a three-legged table, a three-legged stool, a three-footed brass kettle, a musical instrument, etc.; from τρει\ς (τρι-), three, + πούς (ποδ-)
- L tripus (gen. tripodis) < Gr tripous < tri-, tri- + pous, foot
- < L tripod- (s. of tripūs) < Gk tripod- (s. of trípous) orig., three-footed
- from L. tripus (gen. tripodis), from Gk. tripous (gen. tripodos) "a three-legged stool or table," lit. "three-footed," from tri- "three" + pous (gen. podos) "foot"
- L. tripus, tripodis; Gr. three, and foot.
- You'll notice that five note the stem and three note the genitive; of the five that note the stem, three give it before the nom. sg., and of those, two explicitly state that the English word derives from the stem, and not from any particular inflexion of the Latin etymon. Maybe some other authority gives the acc. sg. or the abl. sg.; I don't know. If you have an authority or rationale which favours the plural, then please give it, because at the moment, your position looks baseless.
- As for me, I see all this as only reinforcing my interpretation of the derivations (both of (deprecated template usage) equison and of (deprecated template usage) tripod). Other sources note the genitive, accusative, ablative, or whichever other singular alongside or in place of the nominative because those collateral forms usually show the full stem, whereas the nom. sg. forms are frequently divergent in form, sometimes radically so, and for that reason fail to resemble closely their descendants in English. That does not mean that those sources think that the English word derives from any of those particular forms; as you suggested, it is unlikely to be for any reason more significant than house style. (Consider the converse: how would we decide the true derivation if we actually had different sources claiming derivation from different inflexions of the same word?) For words like innuendo, it is correct to claim its derivation from the ablative singular; for words like (deprecated template usage) tripus, it is correct to claim its derivation from the nominative singular; and for words like (deprecated template usage) tripod, it is correct to claim its derivation from the case-ending-less stem of the word as a lexeme. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
- Your arguments, while well-worded, ignore the fact that we have house style for writing content here, and this is not always the same as what print dictionaries have done in the past. Our entries can link to a full entry about a Latin noun, and need not explain the inflection of the source word in the etymology section; that information is just a click away. Yes, when the English word derives from a specific inflected form of a Latin word (as with innuendo), we can include that as part of the etymology. Doing so is long-accepted and standard practice. However, this does not extend to roots and stems that are not even permitted here under CFI.
- Note also, that this is an inflected form of innuendum, and is not a collateral form. A collateral form is what we usually call an alternative form or alternative spelling on Wiktionary. My Latin dictionaries imply that tripodes is a collateral form with tripus, like English bicep/biceps are collateral forms with the same meaning. Latin has a number of collateral forms with a different gender, different declension, or different number. From what I found on a quick search, tripodes, although plural in form, can have a singular meaning. I will have to investigate further by finding Latin quotations to support this implication, and this may not be easy.
- In any case, Latin words that entered English very early, especially via forms of French tend to come through the ablative. From what I understand through conversations with Carolina Wren, Catalan dictionaries note the same thing in their etymologies. Nouns tended to drift towards use of the Latin ablative form in what is today France and Spain, from which the modern nouns in the descendant languages derive. I know this as well from my years of studying onomastics; modern forms descend from the ablative rather than the nominative form in western Romance languages. --EncycloPetey 20:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
- I'm not calling for us to link to stems or to have entries for them; the stem in the etymology for (deprecated template usage) equison was always noted as {{term||equīsōn-}}. Even if you opposed that method, I'd still advocate noting at the very least that (deprecated template usage) equison derives "From the stem of the Latin equīsō…".
- Yes, I'd mistaken "collateral form" for "inflected form"; I think I understand the difference now. Still, you say that your "Latin dictionaries imply that tripodes is a collateral form with tripus"; however, as you recognise, you need to do the legwork to substantiate that, and even then, it doesn't go very far to showing that the English (deprecated template usage) tripod derives from the Latin (deprecated template usage) tripodēs.
- I can't speak for Catalan or the rest of the western Romance languages with any real knowledge, but I don't see how they would apply in this case, because (deprecated template usage) equison did not enter English from Latin very early on. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 00:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
- Not quite sure where to chime in here, but this issue is something I've been wrestling with myself, with no result as of yet. In Ancient Greek third declension nouns, the lemma form (nom sing) quite often does a fantastic job of hiding some of the stem. Take arthropod for example. How do you get "pod" from "pous"? Unless you know Ancient Greek fairly well, the answer is rather nebulous. So, I can sympathize with what Doremitzwr's trying to do here. At the same time, EP rightly notes that the stem is not some independent entity, which can be cited in a vacuum. Also, we have to simply admit that our current etymology format is woefully incapable of hand-holding the user through every nuanced element of a word's journey through time. The best I've come up with thus far, and I'm still not completely satisfied, is something along the lines of "from Ancient Greek πούς (stem ποδ-)". Anywho, that's all I've got. If you two come to some consensus on the subject, let me know. If, on the other hand, you simply continue to badger each other (as is my suspicion), please bear in mind that both of you have solid arguments on your side, and neither is being dull. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
- Hmmm. I guess what we need to do is find a way of displaying the stem form without implying that it is some independent entry. Would "From the stem ((deprecated template usage) equīsōn-) of the Latin equīsō…" work? (The problem with your solution, Atelaes, is that the need for transcriptions (and, optionally, a gloss) means that it generates a lot of parentheses; e.g., "from Ancient Greek πούς (poús, “foot”) (stem ποδ- (pod-))". However, I suppose something like "from Ancient Greek πούς (poús), ποδ- (pod-, “foot”)" would resolve that, though then it isn't clear what ποδ- (pod-) is in that arrangement.) — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 08:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Hi EP. When you have the time, please respond in #equison etymology. I'd like to reach a resolution with you on this so that I can take your talk page off my watchlist (you've a busy one). Sorry to pester you. Thanks. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 23:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
- I'm not sure that we're going to arrive at an easy solution, or that the solution lies in any decision made by just the two of us. As Atelaes points out, this affects etymologies from third-declension Ancient Greek words as well. It might be better to start a BP discussion laying out the two proposed formats with their rationales, and get more community opinion. This could lead to a "no consensus" situation, but it might also lead to a solution, and at the very least will lead to an awareness of the problem. Sometimes, a problem known now produces an elegant solution later. --EncycloPetey 20:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
- OK. What is your proposed format, then? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 23:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
- Just as I had done, without including the root, and linking/showing only the lemma form or listing/linking the specific inflected form as intermediary if/when that form is known. --EncycloPetey 01:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
In brief, our disagreement centred on the etymologies of the English words tripod and its closely related near-synonym tripus. Both derive from the Latin tripūs, itself a derivation of the Ancient Greek τρίπους (trípous); however, in the case of (deprecated template usage) tripod, there is an intermediary: I asserted that it is the stem (deprecated template usage) tripod-, whereas EP asserted that it is the (nominative?) plural form tripodēs. The discussion that followed was clarifying, but not conclusive. Atelaes then passed comment, stating that "both of [us had] solid arguments on [our] side, and neither [was] being dull". The discussion then petered out.
EncycloPetey proposes only to note lemmata and collateral forms (where known and applicable) in etymologies, whereas I propose to show etyma's stems where they are not obvious from looking at their lemmata. A possible compromise that has not yet been discussed is something like this:
What do others think? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 13:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
- I am undecided on the issue, but I thought I'd add a few things, to clarify the issue for others. Ancient Greek πούς, the central word in this issue, has ποδ as it's stem, or bare form. This can be a little confusing for English speakers, because in English, the singular form is a bare form, that is, it has no inflectional ending. However, in Ancient Greek, as in Latin and many others, all forms have an inflectional ending. Now, consider the very (phonetically) similar English word pod. If you say the plural aloud, you don't actually say the "d", you simply say the plural inflectional ending "s" (realized as /z/, because the last consonant is voiced), with the end result something like /pɑz/. The /z/ is a little sharper, kind of hinting at the dental, but a /d/ is never said. Ok, ok, you can say it with an actual /d/ in there if you're specifically trying, but in natural speech you don't. This is because it's very tricky to say /dz/, and so many languages streamline it to something. This is what's happening with πούς. The inflectional ending of the dictionary form (the nominative singular) has s as its inflectional ending. The /d/ is not pronounced, and the vowel is lengthened and rounded a bit to sort of compensate, and they spelled it as it was pronounced. However, the d is still a part of the word overall, and shows up in most other forms. In any case, it can be a bit confusing to users, as they might well wonder where the d came from, as it doesn't appear to be in the Latin nor the Greek (even though it actually is). Various editors have tried various approaches to clarify this, such as noting the stem itself, or noting the genitive singular form, which shows the d. Keep in mind that the English word tripod did not come from any of these particular forms, but from the word as a whole, the collective sum of all the different forms. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 14:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
- To supplement what Atelaes said: Yes, the English word (deprecated template usage) tripod derives from τρίπους (trípous) as a whole (i.e., as a lexeme), whereas (deprecated template usage) tripus derives from the specific form τρίπους (trípous) (i.e., the nominative singular form). — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
- I am inclined to mentioning stems in etymology, unlinked. That's what I do for Armenian, e.g. in ծովագնաց (covagnacʻ). --Vahagn Petrosyan 14:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
- I think that normal users would benefit from seeing the stem in etymologies. Having the stem unlinked seems to avoid complications. But if contributors in the most affected languages were running out of things to do, stems redirecting to the lemma and appearing on the inflection would be fine. Other approaches might also work. I have just started using unlinked stems in preference to linked particular inflected forms in etymologies. DCDuring TALK 17:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
- Like Atelaes said, you're both kind of right. What I normally do is say "From (the stem of) (deprecated template usage) tripodes", rather than actually write the stem as a separate form with hyphen. Ƿidsiþ 17:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
- That's clearer than eschewing any mention of the stem whatsoever; however, that method either forces the user to click on the lemma of the etymon to work out the stem from the inflexion table given thereat (in the case of extant entries, and quite difficult in the case of, say, Latin verbs, where the English derivation tends to be modelled on the stem of the passive perfect participle) or does not tell the user anything useful (in the case of inextant, "red-linked" entries). Moreover, that wording does not dispel the implication that the stem is "some independent entity, which can be cited in a vacuum". IPOF, that method is the worst of both worlds. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 18:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
- But for English verbs modelled on the passive participle, we can list the participle in the etymology without worrying about stems. Latin participles have their own lemma pages and are treated as a separate part of speech for that language, since they have their own inflection and grammar separate from the verb. The concern is what to do when there is no specific form to link in the etymology, and a stem (word fragment) is desired by the editor. --EncycloPetey 21:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
- No, we can't. The distinction between derivation from the passive perfect participle itself and derivation from the passive perfect participial stem is exemplified by the separate derivations of reparate#Etymology 1 (the adjective) and reparate#Etymology 2 (the verb); that is:
- (deprecated template usage) reparate (adjective) = (Wiktionary): "From the Classical Latin reparātus (“repaired”), perfect participle of reparō (“I renew”, “I repair”)."; (OED): "< classical Latin reparātus, past participle of reparāre…"
- (deprecated template usage) reparate (verb) = (Wiktionary): "From the Classical Latin en reparō (“I renew”, “I repair”), modelled on its past participial stem (deprecated template usage) reparāt-."; (OED): "< classical Latin reparāt-, past participial stem…of reparāre…"
- The adjective (deprecated template usage) reparate has adjectival and perfective verbal force, whereas the verb (deprecated template usage) reparate only has verbal force. In our discussion, you talked about collateral forms; you would need to show that the participle in question was used as a collateral form of the verb to show that the English verb was derived from it and not from its stem. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 22:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
- Yes we can. For the second Etymology, the OED's etymology (and our derivative etymology) consists of a convoluted way of saying it comes from the fourth principal part of the verb, that is, the supine. If we list the supine form of the verb in the etymology, then we need not mess with the stem. I'm surprised that there is no French intermediate. --EncycloPetey 23:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
- I'm not familiar enough with the supine to comment. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 23:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
- Having looked at some Wikipedia pages, it seems to me to be pretty similar to the English infinitive. (Specifically, the full infinitive, complete with the particle to, as opposed to the bare infinitive, without it; since I find it difficult to distinguish a difference in meaning between those two English constructions, I therefore find it difficult to distinguish the Latin supine from the present active infinitive.) It seems to me that this could work for English verbs deriving from Latin ones, so I'll go with marking derivation from the supine if that's what you think is appropriate and unless someone else gives me a reason not to.
- However, the point about the need to demonstrate the use of nominal and adjectival inflexions as collateral forms still stands for English nouns derived from them (because almost all English nouns have a purely nominative force in isolation). Pertinent to this discussion, you still have not proven the use of the plural inflexion tripodēs as a collateral form of tripūs. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 09:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
- Yes, I wanted to point out the distinction, but you've also summarized it well. Cases like the 3rd-declension nouns and adjectives from Greek and Latin, still need examination and discussion as part of this thread, but there probably won't be a need to worry when it comes to verb derivations (at least not in any of the situations I've yet come across). --EncycloPetey 01:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
- I'm glad that verbs aren't a problem; however, nouns still are (maybe less so adjectives). Really, the only way I can see around using stems in the etymologies of nouns deriving from the lexemes (sans case endings) of Latin and Ancient Greek third-declension nouns is for there to be demonstrated use of a form other than the nominative singular as a collateral form in every single case. But, let's cross that bridge when we come to it. For starters, please provide the necessary evidence for the use of (deprecated template usage) tripodēs as a collateral form of (deprecated template usage) tripūs. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 00:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
- As I've noted before, that isn't at all an easy thing to do, but I'll present the evidence I have so far. First, the Facciolati Lexicon lists tripus principally as an adjective. There is a subsection for substantive senses, but all the quotations and translations given there are strictly plural. Likewise, Lewis & Short, although they give tripus as primarily a noun, list only quotations using the plural form, with no examples at all of the singular. They have a separate header for tripodes, including the genitive and gender, although it directs the reader to the tripus entry for more information, and Facciolati does the same. Finally, Niermeyer lists a Medieval variant of tripoda in the headword line for tripus (three-legged stool). Taken together the evidence is stronger than any individual item, although not quite explicit. --EncycloPetey 02:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
- Yes, all that does seem to hint at some irregularity of usage, but what we need is primary evidence; that is, unambiguous uses of (deprecated template usage) tripodēs as a collateral form. The first properly English use of (deprecated template usage) tripod(e) that the OED attests to is from 1603. (Apart from that, it also gives "[1370 Mem. Ripon (Surtees) II. 130 Item unum tripod ferri.]" ("Mem. Ripon" refers to "Memorials of the Church of SS. Peter and Wilfrid, Ripon v.d. (Surtees Soc. 1882–88)" according to its bibliography), but that looks more like Latin than English.) Maybe some of that information will help. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 01:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
- Umm... if all the uses from the primary sources are plural, then isn't that de facto evidence? What sort of "uses" do you imagine finding other than the sorts of citations I've mentioned exist in L&S and in Facciolati? What we are actually lacking is evidence for use of the singular; we have no lack of evidence for the plural. — This unsigned comment was added by EncycloPetey (talk • contribs) at 03:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC).Reply
- The question is whether they have a singular sense: Would those uses be translated into English with the word (deprecated template usage) tripod or the word (deprecated template usage) tripods?
Anyway, thinking clearly about this again, even if the use as a collateral form of (deprecated template usage) tripodēs is proven (or plausibly demonstrated, or whatever), then the English word still derives from the stem. We don't say "a tripodes", we say "a tripod". The plural is (deprecated template usage) tripods, not the invariant (deprecated template usage) tripodes or the suffixed *(deprecated template usage) tripodeses. The only thing that proving that Latin used (deprecated template usage) tripodēs as a collateral form of (deprecated template usage) tripūs achieves is making it unnecessary to mention the stem in the etymology; however, that is only because the stem would be obvious, and not because the word wasn't actually derived from the stem. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 14:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
- Huh? Where did you find any source that actually says the English word derived from the stem? All you've shown are etymologies in dictionaries that mention various forms or a stem, and not always the same one. --EncycloPetey 22:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
- The Encarta® World English Dictionary, North American Edition and Dictionary.com Unabridged both explicitly mark derivation from the stem (deprecated template usage) tripod-. Many others mention the stem, whilst others mention the genitive form (deprecated template usage) tripodis or only the ending thereof. By contrast, no dictionary I've seen states that the English (deprecated template usage) tripod derives from the Latin (deprecated template usage) tripodēs. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 23:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
- Those two sources are not independent, as both are based on the Random House dictionary, which means we really have just one source making the claim. Dictionaries do contain errors, and I believe that this may be one of them. If there is no evidence for a singular form of the Latin substantive, then all the etymologies you've mentioned or alluded to are wrong. --EncycloPetey 23:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
- Here is an example of the use of the substantive in the accusative singular tripodem. What about some evidence of the use of (deprecated template usage) tripodēs as a collateral form with a singular sense? At the moment, your case seems weaker than mine; at least I have a source that unambiguously backs up what I'm saying… — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 00:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
- Your example is dated 1826, which is long after the date that tripod entered the English language. Your case is weaker, because it is predicated entirely upon an apparent error in a single quote from a single dictionary whcih (I note) is not present in any other dictionary that did not copy their information from Random House. I have evidence for the use of the plural substantive prior to the origin of the English word, even in Classical Latin. You have no evidence for substantive use of the singular. --EncycloPetey 00:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
- But you have not shown that they have a singular sense. I shall search for a pre-1603 Latin citation of the substantive use in the singular at a later date. To show that this isn't an isolated error by Random House, derivation from the stem is also given for the (deprecated template usage) -ped terms aliped, biped, fissiped, multiped, pinnatiped, quadruped, and soliped. More (deprecated template usage) -pod terms will follow; I've GTG ATM. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 13:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
- Returning to margin…
Dictionary.com's etymologies of (deprecated template usage) -pod terms that give derivation from the stem include hexapod, polypod, tetrapod, and the aforementioned tripod. Also of note from the OED: isopod, n. (a.) "…f. Gr. type *ἰσοποδ-…"; hexapod, n. and a. "ad. Gr. ἑξαποδ- six-footed…"; cirrhopod "…f. assumed Gr. κιῤῥό-ς…+ ποδ- foot"; taliped, a. vs. ‖talipes; palmiped, n. and adj. "< classical Latin palmiped-, palmipēs web-footed…"; and, (deprecated template usage) bradypod and (deprecated template usage) bradypus, from βραδυποδ- (bradupod-) and βραδύπους (bradúpous), respectively. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 20:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
- To explicate my comments' significance for EP:
- You have only shown that (deprecated template usage) tripodēs was in use in Classical Latin in a plural sense. (Well, you haven't actually shown that, but only asserted it; however, I've seen uses of that term in Classical Latin myself, so that isn't a point of contention.) You need to show that (deprecated template usage) tripodēs was used in a singular sense before you can claim that it was used as a collateral form of (deprecated template usage) tripūs. At the moment, all we have is an ordinary noun which doesn't seem to be attested in the lemma form in Classical Latin (similar, according to the OED, to the case of *(deprecated template usage) faux–fauce–faucēs).
- You asserted that "[my] case is weaker, because it is predicated entirely upon an apparent error in a single quote from a single dictionary". This is not true, as exemplified by the ten other similarly-formatted etymologies to which I linked. I'm sure I could find more etymologies like that for terms that derive from Latin nouns where the stem is not apparent in the nominative singular. Moreover, I linked to some etymologies in the OED which refer to stems; solely to stems in the case of cirrhopod, hexapod, and isopod. (deprecated template usage) Tripod is not some isolated case that can be explained away as an error.
- Even if there exists "no evidence for substantive use of the singular" form(s) of (deprecated template usage) tripodēs "prior to the origin of the English word", there are still all those other (deprecated template usage) -ped and (deprecated template usage) -pod terms to explain away, for every one of which you would need to show the existence of one or more collateral forms.
- Recapitulating my point (in terser form) that I made in an above post in this section (timestamped: 14:11, 9 May 2010): English terms that lack their etyma's case endings and which are modelled on the stems are therefore derived from those stems. That is the difference between bradypus and bradypod, talipes and taliped, tripus and tripod, vibratiuncula and vibratiuncule, &c. — the former of the pairs is derived from its etymon, case ending and all, whereas the latter of the pairs is derived from the stem of its etymon.
- That is what calls for a response from you. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
- Your examples of stem-derivations are still not independent of each other. Multiple appeals to a single dictionary relies on a single editor's choice for a single published work. your appeal to the OED is in error, as it clearly lists (deprecated template usage) isopod as coming from Neo-Latin (deprecated template usage) Isopoda, which is (deprecated template usage) isopoda, and is explicitly identified as a neuter plural form. Your entire argument for why you think (deprecated template usage) tripod comes from a Latin stem is based upon a single doctionary's use of that stem in an etymology, and seems to ignore the fact that most major dictionaries make no such claim whatsoever. You have presented no evidence that (deprecated template usage) tripod or any similar word derives from a stem, rather you have presented only one dictionary's editorial choice for presenting its etymologies, and that choice is at odds with all major dictionaries. The same is true of words with the same ending. Your entire case is based upon what the publishers of the Random House Dictionary chose to do, and which dictionary.com has since copied from them. We need not propogate their error.
- Your point about "singular sense" is irrelevant. If a word was never used in the singular, and never appears in a singular form, then we don't invent such a form simply for the purpose of writing etymologies. The word in that situation is plurale tantum, and is the source word regardless of its meaning in the other language. The fact that it is considered singular in English does not necessitate that it have a singular meaning in Latin to be the source word. --EncycloPetey 18:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
- I number my points for clarity:
- I only quoted the relevant part of the etymology, which was the part that made reference to a stem alone. The OED's etymology for isopod in its entirety is: "[a. mod.F. isopode, f. mod.L. Isopod-a neuter pl., f. Gr. type *ἰσοποδ-, f. iso- + πούς, ποδ- foot.]". Note that in the Latin etymon (deprecated template usage) Isopod-a — whose stem is obvious in the lemma — the OED uses a hyphen to separate the stem from the case ending. It does this a lot; another pertient example is equison, for which it gives "ad. L. equīsōn-em groom…". And of course, it gives the unpredictable stem ποδ- (pod-) for πούς (poús). Assumed but unattested lemmata have the same ontological status as their stems, which explains why they give *ἰσοποδ- but not *ἰσοπους, wouldn't you agree?
- I searched b.g.c. for pre-1603 hits of "tripus" OR "tripodis" OR "tripodem" OR "tripodi" OR "tripode"; it yielded 622 hits. Undoubtedly, there will be a healthy number of uses of the singular substantive in there. Here's one from 1531: (deprecated template usage) Tripus ferrea ante regiã ſemper ſtare ſolebat… (tripūs ferrea ante rēgiam semper stāre solēbat). My Latin isn't great, so I might have got some of that wrong (I'm uncertain about the sense of (deprecated template usage) rēgia that is meant, because I didn't look at the context very much). Curiously, that 1531 source seems to treat (deprecated template usage) tripūs as feminine; however, it is number, and not gender, that is the issue here.
- If they remain close in sense to and retain the case ending(s) of their Classical etyma, it is highly likely for English derivations from Latin or Ancient Greek to preserve the grammatical number of their etyma. The OED lemmatises two words ending in (deprecated template usage) -podes (both derived via Latin from the Ancient Greek πόδες (pódes)), viz. (deprecated template usage) antipodes and (deprecated template usage) Sciapodes — both plural nouns. ((deprecated template usage) Antipodes has the back-formed singular form antipode as well as the etymologically consistent antipous (e.g.); however, that changes nothing — (deprecated template usage) antipodes isn't used as a singular noun, at least not usually or without earning others' reproach.)
- "Your entire argument for why you think (deprecated template usage) tripod comes from a Latin stem is based upon a single d[i]ctionary's use of that stem in an etymology, and seems to ignore the fact that most major dictionaries make no such claim whatsoever. You have presented no evidence that (deprecated template usage) tripod or any similar word derives from a stem, rather you have presented only one dictionary's editorial choice for presenting its etymologies, and that choice is at odds with all major dictionaries. The same is true of words with the same ending." — I presented a summary of the etymologies given in various dictionaries in User talk:EncycloPetey#equison etymology. Most marked derivation from the nominative singular in conjunction with either the stem or the genitive singular; Random House's, as we know, unambiguously marks derivation from the stem qua stem. As I explained in point 4 of my above post (timestamped: 15:14, 16 May 2010), I regard the way the words are written as evidence of derivation from the stem. The way Random House writes its etymologies is not just some arbitrary editorial choice or house style; it's a factual assertion. As you know, the OED differentiates entries by etymology — those from the same root are treated in one entry, whereas those from different roots are treated in different entries. Now, take the OED's entries for tripod, n. and a. (etymology: [ad. L. tripūs, tripod-, a. Gr. τρίπους, -ποδ- adj., three-footed, also as n., f. τρι- three + πούς, ποδ- foot.]) and for ‖tripus (etymology: [L. tripūs, a. Gr. τρίπους tripod.]). Clearly, the OED believes that the singular form (deprecated template usage) tripūs exists (as I demonstrated in point 2) and that (deprecated template usage) tripodēs is not plurale tantum (even if they were wrong, that would be irrelevant, because the point here is about the consistency of their assertions). Given all that, why does the OED treat (deprecated template usage) tripod and (deprecated template usage) tripus in different entries if, as you assert, stems are invalid etymological elements, unless they disagree with you?
- "Your point about 'singular sense' is irrelevant. If a word was never used in the singular, and never appears in a singular form, then we don't invent such a form simply for the purpose of writing etymologies. The word in that situation is plurale tantum…" — I cited in point 2 a Latin text which uses (deprecated template usage) tripūs. The Latin (deprecated template usage) tripūs is thereby attested from 1531, which is 72 years before the date of the first attestation (1603) of the English (deprecated template usage) tripod. That means that (deprecated template usage) tripūs already existed as an ordinary noun (and not as a plurale tantum) in the Latin lexicon long before the English (deprecated template usage) tripod came about. The existence of (deprecated template usage) tripūs also means that (deprecated template usage) tripodēs is ipso facto not plurale tantum, irrespective of whether its existence precedes that of (deprecated template usage) tripūs or of any of the other singular forms. Since (deprecated template usage) tripodēs is not plurale tantum, it is simply an ordinary nominative singular form. Ergo, your assertion that (deprecated template usage) tripodēs is a collateral form is without basis unless you can show its use in a singular sense. (Consider this analogous example: Were we to first attest an English verb in the third-person singular present active indicative form decades or even centuries before its infinitive form, would you therefore maintain that they are separate verbs?)
- Given points 1–5, there is no reason whatsoever to suppose that the Latin (deprecated template usage) tripodēs is the direct etymon of the English (deprecated template usage) tripod; moreover, the fact that no other dictionary I'm aware of asserts as you do should cause you to retract the assertion.
- I respectfully ask that you concede. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 17:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
- Dictionary.com gives the etymology of referent as "1835–45; < L referent- (s. of referēns)…", whereas the OED (draft revision, September 2009) gives it as "< classical Latin referent-, referēns…". It is interesting to note that the OED (2nd Ed., 1989) gives the etymology as "ad. L. referent-em". What I believe we are seeing here is the most up-to-date way of thinking about English derivation. In the case of the OED, they used to show the stem by giving the accusative singular, with the case ending separated therefrom by a hyphen, but now, as with Random House, they give the stem instead (in both cases, giving it priority). I wager that when the OED gets round to revising its entry for equison, they will give its etymology as "< classical Latin equīsōn-, equīsō…", supplanting the second edition's "ad. L. equīsōn-em…". I take this to be the most plausible interpretation of the data. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 13:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
- Given the lack of response, I'll consider this discussion concluded and strike the header. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 03:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
- What to do with forms in Dutch that are composed of verb+adjective or verb+noun? Such as leunstoel? In Dutch, verb infinitives (the lemma form) have a suffix. The suffixless form occurs in the 1st person singular, but this is not a lemma form like it is in Latin, so it's not suited as an etymology. —CodeCat 20:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
- You're confusing the stem with the first-person singular, which can be spelt identically. For example, in Latin mascluine agent nouns (let's take dictātor as our example), the stem is spelt (deprecated template usage) dictātōr-, whereas the nominative singular form is spelt (deprecated template usage) dictātor (i.e., identically, since macra aren't actually written in Latin). In the case of (deprecated template usage) leunstoel, it's the difference between "leun (“I lean”) + stoel (“chair”)" and "(deprecated template usage) leun- (the stem of leunen (“to lean”)) + stoel (“chair”)". IMO, that shouldn't be necessary, since the stem ((deprecated template usage) leun-) is obvious from looking at the lemma ((deprecated template usage) leunen). — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 20:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
- CodeCat: What we do in those sorts of situations for Latin is actually list both the form and the lemma. See WT:ALA#Romance language verbs for a special situation that often occurs. Since the lemma for Romance language verbs is the infinitive, we want to mention the Latin present active infinitive in the etymology as the immediate source word, but we also have to link to the lemma of the Latin verb to avoid lots of extra clicking. The standard solution in that situation is to include both, but that's different from the current issue, where there isn't even a form-of page to link to. --EncycloPetey 21:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
- Word formation and interlinguistic derivation or descent are different things; you're talking about the latter, whereas CodeCat's talking about the former. Unless Dutch compounds involving verbs always involve the first-person singular, there is no reason to mention them in the compounds' etymologies. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 22:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
|
|
