Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word User talk:DCDuring/2014. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word User talk:DCDuring/2014, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say User talk:DCDuring/2014 in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word User talk:DCDuring/2014 you have here. The definition of the word User talk:DCDuring/2014 will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofUser talk:DCDuring/2014, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
2014
Dumps
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
It's apparently the closest thing to something newsworthy so far this month. Unfortunately the schedule is not perfectly reliable. If someone wants to process the dump before it starts to get obsolete, they would probably prefer it fresh from the servers. It would be nice if MW had an automatic notification - or if I knew how to set one up for myself. DCDuringTALK20:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Firestop mortar in a cable tray penetration in a pulp and paper mill.
Hi! I don't edit Wiktionary. I only work on Commons and Wikipedia. I noticed you edited the firestop page here on Wiktionary. The Wiktionary definition of firestop is rather at odds with the Wikipedia page on the topic. The old "fireblock" is when you close off the spaces between studs or joists. And you can't just stuff even those spaces with just foam or insulation batts. Image someone trying to use the materials described on the current Wiktionary page to seal this opening and provide a 3 hour fire-resistance rating that meets the local building code? I suggest a re-consideration of the contents of Wiktionary's page on the term firestop. Best regards, --Achim Hering (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
I can't imagine anyone relying on Wiktionary for much except for the meaning of words. As soon as something becomes important, I'd go to a real source. DCDuringTALK20:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi. I have gone with the masculine gender & species epithets for this genus. Wikispecies appears to be an outlier (of the few sources I rely on) in treating it as feminine. WP lists the "-us" epithets. ITIS lists the "-a" forms as invalid. Perhaps we should include them as synonyms. — Pingkudimmi12:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Good catch. I've become happier as I've become less dependent on WikiSpecies. Today I checked classical language dictionaries and found that τιαρις(tiaris) was an alternative form of (deprecated template usage)lang-grc, masculine in "epic" Ancient Greek, feminine in Attic, Doric, and Aeolic, which would give license to either gender. -ις endings are almost always feminine, as are -is endings in Latin. Presumably there is some ICZN determination that the feminine is invalid for this term. There is an arachnid species Tiara, so presumably the alternative spelling was selected for disambiguation. In any event, I should have checked for actual usage in more than one source, as I now usually do. NCBI also seems pretty good about validity of names. EOL often gives quick access to multiple taxonomic trees. DCDuringTALK13:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Interesting. A dated collocation. The fact that it was once used and has fallen out of fashion is suggestive that it has some kind of cohesion as a collocation, but it is certainly easy to decode. The alliteration reminds me of from stem to stern, which is idiomatic due to the obscurity of stem. I can see why a print dictionary would not waste paper and ink on it. It would not need to be in my personal decoding dictionary. If you add it, I wouldn't RfD it, nor would I vote to keep it, unless someone makes some compelling arguments I can't think of now. DCDuringTALK22:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
I think it's technically called a mistake, but it resulted from my confusion about how the entry should look.
I don't have good access to any references or texts from Latin after Late Latin and before Linnaeus. Not really good after Linnaeus until modern times. That makes it hard to tell whether it was ever used in running Latin text.
Even without references, I suspect that sphaeroides may have been used in several ways. For example, there are three instances of use as a genus name, so it could be an noun used attributively referring to any of those three, when a specific epithet. Sometimes it may have been an adjective.
Latest comment: 10 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion
Hello DC -- Re this edit, I don't think that using {{&lit}} is appropriate here, since it implies that the philosophical sense is idiomatic. The philosophical sense may be somewhat technical (many terms are) but I don't think that fact in itself makes a term idiomatic. (As for deleting what is now sense 3, which Wikitiki89 thinks is SOP, I don't have any feelings about that.) -- · (talk) 18:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
What do you mean by idiomatic? If a term has a specific technical meaning such as this one that is not predictable based even on technical definitions of its component parts, it is thereby idiomatic in the sense we usually use it in Wiktionary discussion pages. DCDuringTALK18:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
I think what he means is, and I somewhat agree, that the philosophical sense is just a more specific technical version of the literal sense, and thus not really an "idiom" according to the non-Wiktioanry definition of "idiom". --WikiTiki8918:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
@Wikitiki89, Talking Point Are there any attestable senses of private and language the meaning of which would combine to yield the philosophical sense of private language? I think not, but citations could prove me wrong. DCDuringTALK19:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
A private language is a language that is private to one person. All other information is just qualities that philosophers say such a language must possess. --WikiTiki8919:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
I think Wikitiki89 represents the matter reasonably. DC, I think you are on a path where almost every multi-word technical term in philosophy, psychology, and a host of other fields, would qualify for a {{context|idiomatic}} tag, and that's going much too far for my tender sensibilities. -- · (talk) 19:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
I don't see any reason why we have to have a label that says idiomatic — ever. I also don't see why having a non-transparent sense in an entry should mean that we should not remind users that there are any number of possible senses that are transparent combinations of components, whether technical or not.
That private means "private to a single person" is somewhat contradictory to the ordinary notion of language, what with it being so involved with communication. I can't find a definition of language at MWOnline that does not involve communication. An ordinary construal of the expression would require a novel definition of language that would allow the "individual" sense of private to be a modifier. DCDuringTALK21:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
MWOnline covers that with a definition of language as "a formal system of signs and symbols (as FORTRAN or a calculus in logic) including rules for the formation and transformation of admissible expressions".
Though WMOnline has 12 definitions for language they do not have one that is consistent with the use in private language. I wonder whether the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy does. The Free Online Dictionary of Philosophy (FOLDOP) does not. DCDuringTALK21:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Now that I think about it, there is communication involved. Writing a note to yourself is communicating with yourself. There doesn't have to be anyone else in order to communicate. --WikiTiki8921:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
I'm not at all sure that I wrote all the things that appear over my signature at Wiktionary. Sometimes I don't understand them. Sometimes they seem too wise to have come from my brain. Sometimes they seem expressed with more certainty than I have or remember having. Who is hacking my user account?
Three logicians walk into a bar. The bartender asks, "Will you all have beers?" The first one says, "I don't know." The second one says, "I don't know." The third one says, "Yes." --WikiTiki8923:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Descartes walks into an oyster bar. The server asks: "Would you like any oysters today, René?" Descartes says: "I think not." and vanishes. DCDuringTALK23:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Your recent edit to greenline makes no sense. Creating a new definition and then RfVing the old one? Why? Each of the sources you added to support your definition supports mine as well. The two definitions on the page are essentially the same, except that one better emphasizes being an antonym of redlining: mine. The RfV needs to be closed, my definition needs to be kept, and your definition needs to be deleted. Purplebackpack89(Notes Taken)(Locker)20:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
Don't try removing the RfV.
"Essentially" in your opinion, not mine. I object to inclusion in the definition of healthcare and financial services other than real-estate lending or property insurance. The citations I found support only those services. If you put some good citations in the entry to support other senses, then an extension of the definition to other services might be valid. In principle all definitions should have citations. The case for having them for definitions not found in other dictionaries is stronger. DCDuringTALK21:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
But if citations for the other stuff were found, you didn't need a full-blown RfV. All I need is ONE citation that supports health care as a cause, and since there's already three citations for the definition (as all three of the citations for your definition are applicable for mine as well), I have an infinite amount of time to find them even if I don't remove your bogus RfV. BTW, while we're on the subject of what's supported, profitability in your sense isn't supported: the sentences support stuff happening, not causality Purplebackpack89(Notes Taken)(Locker)23:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
RfV is our only procedure other than RfD and direct editing without any process, which I am fairly sure you would find more annoying than following due process, as I am. As I am favoring narrowing the definition, I don't think RfD-sense, often used to challenge redundant senses, applies.
You can find a single citation for lots of nonsense. As to "profitability", I am sure I could find ONE citation and could almost certainly find three. I suppose that Martians and others uninformed about human nature and institutions might need such citations. We could always delete the word profitable, too.
And we really should have three citations for both transitive and intransitive senses, unless we stipulate that the term can be used both ways and find a wording that includes both.
Areas are not just greenlined because of perceived profitability, they are greenlined because of political pressures. I again reiterate that your citations are applicable to my definition. Also, yellowlining isn't a word. Purplebackpack89(Notes Taken)(Locker)00:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
Try to keep up. I deleted the word "profitable" to allow for the possibility of the greenlining being the result of extortion. DCDuringTALK00:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
You do realize that you're making an RfV argument in an RfD of a different definition, right? And that I have a week or more to find citations, right? And that you tearing down my definition won't save your own definition, right? Purplebackpack89(Notes Taken)(Locker)00:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello and a profound admiration for you and your fellow travelers' lexicographical endeavors. I have a question on one of your contributions, however. I see you are the one who five years ago edited the entry on the suffix "-eth" to suggest that it may have been pronounced in Early Modern English as "-s". This would bring much joy to my heart; as a non-native speaker I always found people's reciting of poetry with that full-blown "-eth" pronunciation cringingly silly. I must nevertheless ask you if you have any pertinent sources to back up this fantastic claim.
As an aside, you seem to have misspelled the name of your mathematics professor. He is in fact the renowned mathematician Norbert Wiener. — This comment was unsigned.
Thanks for the Wiener correction.
I only tried to make the text of the Pronunciation note more intelligible. I don't much care about pronunciations generally. DCDuringTALK20:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
<=
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
The one on the right is an older, disused synonym. I was hoping not to have to be explicit about the nature of the synonymy, as I don't have the tools and knowledge to achieve a high level of correctness. I was also hoping that the parentheses and arrow combined would at least make it clear that the term within the parentheses was less important to a user than the one outside the parentheses. The taxonomic literature calls things synonyms that we might not call synonyms or would call "obsolete" or "archaic" synonyms. I don't want to merely duplicate what the taxonomy sites have. That's a pattern that I leave to those who faithfully copy the marginally intelligible Sanskrit to English dictionary that we have a redundant copy of. There is no left-pointing arrow symbol in our Miscellaneous character set.
An alternative is to move the old synonym under a Synonyms header, but that would increase the need for an explicit label. I'm not sure how many entries have these, but I doubt that there are more than 200, so a consensus agreement on a desired format (one that did not assume perfect information !) could be readily implemented. DCDuringTALK21:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for the explanation. I think it is better to remove the obsolete synonyms from non-translingual entries altogether, so as not to confuse readers like me. --Vahag (talk) 07:46, 29 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
The problem is that the terms are still to be found in older books and current books that rely on older references. Taxonomic names - at all levels - are revised regularly. The language of the taxonomic community has some of the features of languages of other communities. Taxonomic language evolves creating many opportunities for confusion that cannot be eliminated by not covering 1., ambiguities and 2., the use of multiple terms (some disapproved of by authorities) for the same underlying natural objects. DCDuringTALK13:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
I am mostly disengaged on the subject of idiomaticity. I prefer working in more constructive, less contentious areas. I think some inclusionists are becoming less dogmatic and more skeptical about claimed idiomaticity. DCDuringTALK01:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
It is not entirely unambiguous. At first I thought to put it back under the noun PoS, but pioneering is used as a true adjective (I think it is even comparable). We need a clearer illustation. Unfortunately, demonstrating the semantics and demonstrating the grammar do not often lead to the same selection of citations. DCDuringTALK17:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
I’m not denying that it is used as a true adjective, just that the usex is using another sense. The people mentioned in it were notorious for exploring polar regions, not for creating new ideas and methods. — Ungoliant(falai)19:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
Collins has "pioneering work or a pioneering individual does something that has not been done before, for example by developing or using new methods or techniques". DCDuringTALK02:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
I think there is very good reason to achieve the right result (ie, getting users to the right lemma) by expedient means that are not inherently destructive. If, eventually, you devise some means that you find esthetically or otherwise more satisfying, more power to you. I see no reason to wait for that result. If you would like to have such entries categorized into some noncompliance maintenance category for eventual resolution, I would be glad to do so as I find them or enact them. DCDuringTALK23:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
The problem is that this is going to bite us sooner or later. I see so reason to wait for {{plural of}} to be improved when it works fine as it is. There is nothing wrong with the entry. —CodeCat23:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
It doesn't take readers to where they should be taken. This is a problem for all long English entries that have multiple etymologies. Unless tabbed languages enables us to split English L2s by Etymology there is a serious entry navigation problem that is much more significant for English L2s, which tend to be much more elaborate than those of other languages even before allowing for translation tables.
That's what I thought. Placed at a sense, it highlights the sense and comes below the inflection line. Placed above a header it adds a blue bar and an asterisk. Placed above text it highlights the following text. The only place it might work would be above the inflection line. But the highlighting seems dumb. And the name is misleading when used in one of the places it should be be used for cases like comae. DCDuringTALK00:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
It is the right concept but doesn't do the job as is, most obviously because of the formatting. A renamed and revised one would be better than the expedients I have been using, which in any event only work for the first L2 section using a given section name on a page, ie, usually English for words with all plain Latin script headwords. DCDuringTALK00:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
BTW, where it is now above the inflection line, the highlighting is not terrible, but there is that intrusive dot. As a general rule, for the kind of thing I have been discussing highlighting seems more likely to be harmful than helpful. DCDuringTALK00:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Wasn't it better as a simple "alternative form" rather than the half-duplication, or are there subtle differences in the meanings of the two words? Equinox◑23:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
Just differences in the frequency with which the spellings are used with the various species. A more economical method might have been to just have the species for which the spelling is the principal one, but that would not work unless the user opened one window for each alternative spelling to compare. It's a bit obsessive. Sometimes I remind myself of User:Doremitzwr, with his typographic obsessions. DCDuringTALK23:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Category:Entries using missing taxonomic name (ambiguous)
What's the point in using {{taxlink}} here? You're adding a link to a nonexistent Wikispecies entry, and creating a category for a nonexistent taxonomic rank. Most old higher-level taxonomic names are hard to state in terms of modern taxonomy, so the Wikispecies link is particularly useless with those (the Wikispecies architecture simply has no way to deal with taxonomic change). Chuck Entz (talk) 04:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
How are you doing Mister DCDuring? I hope all has been well for you!
I'm just wondering, but which Wikimedia projects do you work on most often, and which language versions of those Wikimedia projects? Tharthan (talk) 01:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
I would say "roll of film". “film roll”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. reveals no lemmings. "Roll(s) of film" outnumbers "film roll(s)" at COCA about 220 to 5. In contrast, at COCA "film reel(s)" outnumbers "reel(s) of film" 24 to 19. To be clear a roll of film is indeed what is pictured and a "reel" virtually always refers to "moving-picture" film. DCDuringTALK19:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
BTW, I strongly favor the use of images in entries where there is any ambiguity, obscurity, or even just visual interest. As in this case it should make it easier to confirm the validity of definitions and translations, as well as helping users. DCDuringTALK19:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
Thanks a lot! It's surprising how difficult it is sometimes to find proper translations for extremely common everyday items such as in this case for a roll of film. The English dictionaries do not list "roll of film" because its meaning is obvious to a native speaker and the term would thus be a SOP. --Hekaheka (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
You can always ask me about such things. It may help me get some insight into the translation problems. It might make me more sympathetic to the needs of all those who contribute translations. Maybe I can see some new approach (or accept one already advanced) to the SoP translation targets that will not mislead users about the nature of the English expressions and yet be convenient for translators. DCDuringTALK20:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
Sorry. I didn't notice your comment in the third or fourth edit-conflict diff needed to post my comment. Almost always I don't overwrite, but this isn't the first time I've made a similar mistake. Is it possible that your comment didn't show up in the diff?DCDuringTALK15:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I don't think that link is helpful under 'External links'. If you want to remove it from where it's relevant, then please just remove it completely. —RuakhTALK19:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
It certainly isn't a quotation. It could be where most other project links are. I don't really care, as my attention was drawn to it by {{taxlink}}. Also, I never liked the idea of External links for project links, preferring the See also header, but DanP had a vote. And welcome back. DCDuringTALK20:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
I'm not saying that you were wrong to remove it from where it was; although I do like having sense-specific Wikipedia-links there, and do think that they are a form of attestation (albeit not in the same category as a durably archived full-sentence quotation), I recognize that this is not an opinion everyone shares. But I think it's unhelpful to put it under 'External links', since there's not enough information in the link description to tell which sense it pertains to (or even that it is sense-specific). I think it would be better for the 'External links' section to link to the disambiguation-page, same as the box at right. And — thanks. I'm actually not sure how "back" I am, though. :-P —RuakhTALK04:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
In taxonomic entries, in which I often place many external links and for which there are sometimes more than on taxon, even from a given Etymology, I sometimes use a semi-colon subheader to split the links. Of course many such links are not project links, they are to true external sites, so proximity placement of project link boxes is not an option. Pipes are also usable. We miss you. DCDuringTALK05:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
Wiki-Stalking
Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion
He doesn't like it when people edit his articles. I have had the same whining from him. I don't think he has ever read the Save Page small print, which says: "By clicking the Save Page button, you are agreeing to the Terms of Use and the Privacy Policy, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license." Equinox◑00:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
I'm not even sure what he's on about, other than my comments about the 'chessmen' and the expensive London retailer. I don't even specifically remember editing any of his entries, especially not lately. I don't usually even look at edit histories, though perhaps I should do so more often. DCDuringTALK01:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I just saw your edit. I don't normally edit Wiktionary. I pretty much restrict myself to Commons and Wikipedia. But your edit on that one is not descriptive. I'm not going to argue this with you, but if you would take a moment to look at the links I put on the talk page, you might see it differently. I have been in this field since 1981 and I am a contributor to assorted industry for a, writing standards, working on codes. What you wrote (well-meant I'm sure) is inaccurate and misleading.--Achim Hering (talk) 15:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
@Achim Hering A dictionary definition should be brief, unlike a more formal code-style definition, as it is written for a general audience. If you can improve it, keeping it a single sentence not too much longer than my version, please do. I'll take a look.
Also, under an "External links" header, please add a link to any website page (or, better, section of such page) that has a full or official definition. I personally welcome "technical" vocabulary for Wiktionary, as it is an area of deficiency, but our users are not very technical and few technical users would ever rely on what they find here, no matter how carefully and accurately worded. HTH. DCDuringTALK15:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago16 comments3 people in discussion
Hi DCDuring. Could you take a look at the entry I've just made for the generic name Leontice to check its formatting and accuracy, and to fix any omissions you find, please? — I.S.M.E.T.A.09:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
If I were just passing by, I'd probably have made no changes. As you asked, I pushed to add what I add when I had some reason to be focused on an entry. I like to add pictures and links to some good external sites, not just our sister projects. The genus entry will, sadly, possibly never be linked to from an entry in a real language, except as descendant: I can't find a vernacular name. I usually don't bother with the alternative names that differ only in capitalization. I'm not yet sure what I think about French as an alternative form of a Translingual term.DCDuringTALK02:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
Please excuse the delay in response. I don't really mind about volume of links; my concern was to elucidate the meanings of its Classical etyma. As for the alternative forms, I found some instances where both parts of the binomen were capitalised even though other binomina received the standard treatment of having the generic name capitalised and the specific epithet decapitalised; I figured that was significant. My guess is that Leontice Leontopetalum is doubly capitalised because both parts of the binomen derive from nouns. (As for Leonticé Leontopetalum, it isn't French (or, at least, not exclusively so); that's the spelling used in the LSJ entry for λεοντοπέτᾰλον.) I have a query about Leontice leontopetalum. Following the gender of the generic name, Leontice, I recorded the specific name as feminine; however, I'm not so confident that I ought to have done. The specific epithet, leontopetalum, derives from a neuter noun, and has retained a case ending characteristic thereof. In such cases of mixed-gender derivation, what is the gender of the resulting binomen? I note that ahandfulofauthors have "regularised" the name to the effect that its component nomina agree in gender. — I.S.M.E.T.A.16:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
Worry not about delayed or forgotten responses. As to gender of binomials, the gender of the genus should always govern. A true noun used attributively as specific (or subspecific, etc) epithet has no effect on that. This comes up fairly often. Sometimes the noun is a genus name that is no longer used as a genus name. That isn't true in this case, as double-checking at Leontopetalum at The Plant List and Leontopetalon at The Plant List shows. Fairly often the namer of a species takes the wrong cue in guessing at the gender of the genus and has an erroneous ending on the epithet, as in your handful of cases, I think. We can do better because we can look at the names of more species name decisions (eg, at Leontice at The Plant List), besides having ready access to LSJ and L&S. I believe that the rules provide for such errors to be corrected even if made in an otherwise valid original description that is followed by others. Similarly, Wikispecies has gotten it wrong a few times that I've noticed. (If you are confident about a Wikispecies gender error, move the entry if you can or mention it on the talk page or their Village Pump page: they could use the help and would fairly rapidly whitelist you.) DCDuringTALK 20:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC) — IFYPFY. — I.S.M.E.T.A.21:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
Thank you; that's reassuring. And I'll be sure to correct errors on Wikispecies if and when I'm sure how to. As for Leontopetalum, -on, Philip Miller (1691–1771) seems to have used Leontopetalon as a name for Leontice, so Linnaeus might well indeed have relegated Miller's generic name to a specific epithet for the type species of Leontice. — I.S.M.E.T.A.21:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
Under current rules for both plants and animals, the correct capitalization is upper-case generic name, lower-case specific epithet. This is only a matter of decades old, if I remember correctly, so older references did it any way they wanted. A fairly common scheme was upper case for specific epithets that were from proper nouns, but lower case otherwise. I'm sure there's at least some correlation between capitalization of common nouns in the writer's native language and capitalization of noun-based specific epithets.
As for gender agreement: both the botanical and zoological codes are quite clear that specific epithets which are adjectives (they can also be nouns in apposition or in the genitive case) must agree in gender with the current generic name, but there are pockets of resistance in certain fields. For instance, some people think that the gender should remain the same as it was when described, so that non-specialists don't get confused about whether X. alba is the same as Y. albus or Z. album when it gets reclassified into different genera. It's also true that not every scientist is a classical scholar: even Linnaeus got some genders wrong (I believe Sphex is one case, but I haven't checked if I'm remembering the right one). w:Eugène Simon, for instance, was a teenager when he started publishing species, so several of his earlier names are based on misunderstandings of Ancient Greek. Not to mention generic names based on words in languages that have no gender, or created from "arbitrary sequences of characters", which the author is supposed to designate a gender for, but for which they often don't.
As for -on vs. -um: I believe the current practice is to normalize Greek endings to Latin, but I do see some plant names, at least, in -on,-os and -e (Arctostaphylos, for instance).
Thanks, Chuck. I've developed my understanding mostly by induction, not by systematic study of the Codes and their history. It's nice to know that my surmises and fragmentary learning are mostly right. I'm still not entirely sure what to do about specific epithets that don't even look Latin. As you know I've been categorizing them as "derived from Taino" or whatever. As I haven't found too many yet, it would still be quite easy to rethink the categories. DCDuringTALK03:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
As I mentioned above, arbitrary sequences of characters are allowed, as long as they fit the rules of Latin spelling. There are cases where an author created a new name by reversing the letters of an existing one (see w:Muilla from Allium) or even by rearranging the letters.
The taxonomic codes only allow names published from the dates of Linnaeus' first works using binomials in the respective areas (In the case of w:Svenska Spindlar they got around this by decreeing that it was published in 1758 instead of 1757), so there are lots of instances where the author of record is only the first to publish a description accepted by the taxonomic code, not the originator of the name. In the case of Leontopetalon, w:Philip Miller is credited with the name, but only because he published after w:Species Plantarum. Linnaeus himself cited previous works. Here are all the referenced works in the section on Leontice leontopetalum in Species Plantarum that I could find online: w:Hortus Cliffortianusp.122, w:Joseph Pitton de Tournefort's "Corollarium Institutionum Rei Herbariae" p.49, w:Gaspard Bauhin's "Pinax Theatri botanici", p.324, w:Joachim Camerarius the Younger's "De Plantis Epitome Utilissima" p.565, and w:John Ray's "Historia Plantarum" p.1326 (w:Robert Morison]'s "Historia Plantarum Universalis" doesn't seem to be available online).
By the way, I like to use the Missouri Botanical Garden's Tropicos for plant names because it gives information about obsolete synonyms as well as about currently accepted names. It doesn't always say which name is correct and sometimes disagrees with other references when it does- but it's great for deciphering old names. I should also give you links for the ICZN and the ICN. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
@Chuck Entz: Thanks very much for all that information. I've made a note of those links to the ICN, ICZN, and Tropicos on my user page. From looking over those links about Leontopetalon, -um, I've been given the impression that Leontopetalon quorundam is a some kind of species name, in use since no later than 1696; is that so, or is it my misapprehension? Also, what is the significance of the "nouns in apposition" loophole with regard to the gender of Leontice leontopetalum? — I.S.M.E.T.A.15:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
Before Linnaeus, taxonomic names consisted of a short Latin phrase, which, for species, consisted of the name of the genus followed by a very terse description of what made it distinct. Thus a hypothetical sparrow with white on the forehead and a big tail would hypothetically be called something like "Passer albifrons et macrourus" (my Latin's lousy, but you get the idea). Linnaeus used these too, but he also put what he called a "trivial name" in the margin which consisted of a single Latin word that was unique within the genus to that one species. The trivial name is what we now call the specific epithet. Anything from before Linnaeus started using trivial names was one of those phrases, even if it consisted of two parts. In other words, "Leontopetalon quorundam" is just Latin, not a binomial (it may just mean "a certain Leontopetalon" mentioned in the cited reference, and not be a name at all). Also, you'll notice in the codes that, by definition, no species name before Linnaeus' first publication using binomial nomenclature (the 1753 edition of Species Plantarum for plants & the 1758 edition of Systema Naturae for animals) is considered taxonomically valid.
As for "nouns in apposition": if a specific epithet is an adjective, it's required to agree with the generic name in gender and number. If it's an noun in the genitive, it agrees with the referent, not with the generic name (the specific epithet "smithae" would mean that the species was named after a female by the name of Smith, not that the generic name was feminine). A noun in apposition, though, is in the nominative case, so it doesn't agree with anything-Equus caballus would always be have a specific epithet of caballus, no matter what genus you moved it to. If "leontopetalum" is a noun in apposition rather than an adjective describing "Leontice", then it provides no evidence whatsoever for the gender of Leontice. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
How do the Codes address the potential ambiguity due to Latin adjectives that are also used as substantives? Is such substantive use discouraged or prohibited? Or does it require some explicit statement of whether the epithet is a noun or an adjective? DCDuringTALK04:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
They don't. The proscriptions only apply to cases where it's clear that the specific epithet is an adjective and has the wrong gender. I'm not sure how often that would come up, anyway- how many substantive adjectives are there that one would want to use instead of an adjective? If someone claimed that changing the gender would be wrong because it was really a substantive form that just looked the same as an adjective, I'm sure the first question would be "what makes you think that?" Chuck Entz (talk) 06:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
I have no idea how important the possibility might be. It just looked like a loose end. I do keep on running across such adjectives at Little and Short, but haven't yet come across a case for a specific epithet in the two thousand or so I've considered. But I've still got a few million species to look at. DCDuringTALK12:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
I should have included a link the this page for the RHU entry and the alternate spelling they give fourmente. This ATILF entry uses the fourmente spelling. I doubt that my research was very thorough or that my judgment was particularly good in 2009. DCDuringTALK23:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
I relied on the references and should have cited them. What they rely on I don't know. In English I have been able to use the Middle English Dictionary online, which seems to be close to total in its coverage of the available material. DCDuringTALK16:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
It's not essential, but could be useful for some. I believe that the species (or genus) members of the category Hominids would be found by a search for 'Translingual "species (or genus) within the family Hominidae"'. At least that is my intention. The only thing required for this to work is that each entry for members of Hominidae show family membership rather than genus, subtribe, tribe, or subfamily. If you use a definition other than Hominidae for hominids, the categorization would not be duplicative of the results of such a simple search. DCDuringTALK05:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
It's in the queue, but won't be added soon, there being only two links to it. Use {{taxlink}} to put any taxonomic name into the queue and link to Wikispecies in the process. {{vern}} works the same for English vernacular names. DCDuringTALK12:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
Thank you, particularly for your edits to σπάλαξ! I feel foolish because I asked for your help before turning around and immediately starting to use {{taxlink}} shoddily, which would have gotten you to help eventually anyway. —JohnC5(Talk | contribs)21:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
Don't feel foolish. Few contributors use {{taxlink}}, though I appreciate it when they do. It is more important to use taxlink around a taxonomic name than to use it "properly", ie, to determinw what kind of taxonomic name it is (easy if it is in Wikispecies, not as easy otherwise) and whether or not it should be italicized. At least the user can get a little more information from Wikispecies.
There are more than 11K pages that contain {{taxlink}}, many pages having multiple wanted taxonomic names. There are also many redlinked and unlinked taxonomic names. I eventually get bored adding taxonomic entries from those lists and do other things, like adding vernacular names from Wikipedia disambiguation pages; adding specific epithets, images, external links for taxa; adding my favorite local plants; and adding species that are model organisms, have Native American origins, etc. I try to add the most wanted taxonomic names, those with four or more taxlinks wanting them. DCDuringTALK21:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
Well, I very much appreciate your efforts and would love to help in any way I can; though all I'm really good for is etymologies, when it comes to taxa. But if you ever need anything, just ask! —JohnC5(Talk | contribs)23:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
Just to check, should I be adding the noshow param in my {{taxlink}} usage, or should I leave that to you? The code for the template seems to indicate that it would only work if you add the param. —JohnC5(Talk | contribs)03:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
"noshow=1" suppresses the tracking category. You seem to have use of {{taxlink}} down - and you know you have my thanks - so you can add it if you want. Omit it if you would like me to take a look for any reason, uncertainty, pride, etc. DCDuringTALK04:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
