Talk:Verticordia brachypoda

Etymology of brachypoda
Turczaninow did not provide the derivation of brachypoda but since this is an article about a plant, an etymology that can be understood by a Wikipedia reader interested in plants is required. Such readers are not familiar with terms like "pous, genitive podos (πούς, genitive ποδός) meaning foot". It is necessary to provide a derivation that readers interested in a plant will comprehend. It is most unlikely that a person interested in knowing that ποδός is the genitive form of podos will refer to an article about a verticordia.

This is information better suited to a Wiktionary article. There is such an article, but it presently lacks a reliable reference. Perhaps an editor who wants readers to know that -poda is somehow derived from podos (πούς, genitive ποδός) meaning "foot", should instead be editing Wiktionary articles. It would greatly assist those few readers of a plant article, who want to know the derivation of the Greek words used in botanical Latin, if there was a link to the Wiktionary article like this: "The specific epithet (brachypoda) is derived from the Ancient Greek words brakhus meaning "short" and podos meaning "foot"." Gderrin (talk) 02:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Further to the above - it should be remembered that linking to other projects, including Wiktionary, is encouraged. (See WP:SIS) The references to "brakhus" and "podos", as in an earlier version of this article, should of course be included. Gderrin (talk) 03:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Please, read your contribution and revise it, as "ποδός is the genitive form of podos " is non-sense, as "ποδός is the genitive form of pous (πούς). And "-poda is somehow derived from podos" is also non-sense, as -poda is not derived from the genitive case. And: "The specific epithet (brachypoda) is derived from the Ancient Greek words brakhus meaning "short" and podos meaning "foot"." is also non-sense. Wimpus (talk) 10:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


 * As I have tried to explain, statements like "ποδός is the genitive form of pous (πούς)" belong in Wiktionary. Such statements as 'brachypoda is derived from the ancient Greek terms brachys (βραχύς), meaning "short" and pous, genitive podos (πούς, genitive ποδός) meaning "foot"' would be nonsense to readers of plant articles. That kind of language is not in any book about plants or in any botany journal. I think that should be clear to you, considering how many editors have reverted your changes. Gderrin (talk) 11:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually it is sourced from a botanical dictionary. So, see also here, here, here in which both the nominative and genitive case pous and podos are given. How do I have to interpret "That kind of language is not in any book about plants or in any botany journal."? Wimpus (talk) 11:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello Hello and  Would you be agreeable to changing the contested edit to "...the ancient Greek brachys meaning "short" and pous podos meaning " a foot", referring to the length of the stalk supporting the inflorescence"? I think that is what is being proposed in the previous paragraph. (Unfortunately, I do not have access to the cited book.) Gderrin (talk) 20:18, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I think that the ancient Greek brachys meaning "short" and pous (genitive podos) meaning "a foot" would be an acceptable compromise. The meaning "short-stalked" can also be sourced to the Vocabulary section in Stearn's Botanical Latin. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Gderrin has not made clear why it would be non-sense. It can not be the inclusion of the Greek characters, as Gderrin added himself words in Greek characters to these articles: ; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;. Wimpus (talk) 11:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you I appreciate your suggested compromise. Just to be clear, I do not see any Greek characters, or the words "genitive" or "nominative" in any book about plants or in any botany journal, nor in the references listed by editor It is true that in articles I edited more than two years ago, I added Greek characters. On refelection, that was probably a mistake and one that I am prepared to correct. I added those Greek letters mainly to articles about melaleucas and eremophilas. That said, I am prepared to compromise and accept changing the etymology in this article to the ...ancient Greek brachys meaning "short" and pous (genitive podos) meaning "a foot", even though I think it is unnecessary to include "genitive". I would also appreciate the opinions of and  Gderrin (talk) 07:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a book, in which you can explain in the introduction that the second form that is provided, is the genitive case. On p. 5 of Roland Wilbur Brown's The Composition of Scientific Words you can read for example:
 * The genitives of nouns are given only when they help to clarify the spelling of the root-stem or combining base. For this reason the genitives in -ae of Latin first and in -i of second declension nouns, and those in -on of Greek nouns, are omitted.
 * In case people are not aware, that the second form is the genitive case, people can misinterpret the second form as equivalent (nominative) case.
 * Gderrin, over the last few years, you seem to have randomly picked the nominative or the genitive case (when sourcing Brown), probably not knowing the difference between those two and probably not aware of the explanation of Roland Wilbur Brown on p. 5. Adding the word "genitive", possibly as link, could partially remediates this.
 * This example you have written, illustrates this nicely:
 * Francis Sharr gives the etymology as derived from the Latin littus littoris "seashore or beach" and -cola meaning "-dweller". Other sources give littus, litus as Latin meaning "shore", "beach" or "bank"  and -cola meaning "dweller".
 * The second form of "littus littoris" (missing a comma) is the genitive case, while in "littus, litus", the second form is an orthographic nominative alternative. That is quite confusing. First, I thought that you wanted to express, that "litus" is the genitive case of "litus" and you just made a typo. But "litus, genitive litus" is "a smearing, besmearing, anointing". The only thing you needed to express, is that "litus" can be written with one or two t's. I do not wish to discuss "littus, litus" per se, but I do want emphasize that we have to be precise and not careless, when providing an etymology. And, as alot of Latinized Greek forms are already presented by Gderrin as ancient Greek forms, adding Greek characters can only highlight that were talking about real Greek. Wimpus (talk) 08:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)