Talk:Eucalyptus oligantha

Etymology oligantha

Sharr gives the etymology of oligantha as follows:

• oliganthus: G oligos few + -anthus -flowered: Grevillea, Hibbertia, Leucopogon, Ricinocarpos, Synaphea, Xyris. I take this to mean that oligos is from Greek and -anthus from Latin, since oligantha is botanical Latin. Gderrin (talk) 06:55, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Further, Stearn gives oliganthus = "few-flowered".

Sharr does not properly refer to -anthus as botanical Latin. The current wording "The specific epithet (oligantha) is from the ancient Greek oligos meaning "few" and ‑anthus meaning "‑flowered" " suggest that -anthus is also Greek. That is definitely not an improvement. Wimpus (talk) 13:58, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Oliganthus is botanical Latin. The first part of the word is from Greek. Stearn has "oliganthus, few-flowered". Sharr gives the etymology of the word and refers it to the genus Eucalyptus, in an English-language text about Australian plants, edited by a distinguished Australian botanist and linguist, for Australian readers. The Backer text is not accessible to me and is apparently in a foreign language. Gderrin (talk) 23:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I do agree with @Wimpus: (in another place) that it is confusing to have "...from the ancient Greek oligos meaning "few" and -anthus meaning "-flowered". I think the problem lies with botanists and the Code. As I understand it, the ancient Greek word for "flower" is anthos, but the Code does not allow oliganthos. Stearn gets around the problem by giving "in combinations, the Latinized form -anthus (is treated as masculine)".

The solution:

• ALT1 We might get around the problem by writing "...and the ancient Greek anthos", but for other epithets, (such as lasiandra in the present version of Melaleuca lasiandra,) that leads to even greater confusion for anybody other than a linguist who understands the meaning of words like "genetive". (Looking up the meaning only leads to more confusion for a plant lover/naturalist).
• ALT2 We could write "... and the Latinized form of the ancient Greek anthos", but it would be difficult to find a reference for the equivalent andros. (Stearn gives andro-, andrus; in Gk. comp., male.)
• ALT3 My preferred position is to ask the Greek linguists to take a deep breath, remember these are plant articles, (yes - botanists have buggered the Greek language) and allow "...and -anthus meaning "-flowered"". or

If there are other alternatives, I would be happy to read them. Gderrin (talk) 02:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

In the first edition of Sharr's Western Australian Plant Names and Their Meanings from 1978, Sharr unequivocally derives oliganthus from "G oligos few" and "G anthos flower". It seems that in the second (By Sharr) or third (by George) edition, "G anthos" mysteriously disappeared, while "G oligos remained. In the explanation of oligandrus Sharr refers to "G oligos few" and "G anēr, andros man" with mentioning both the nominative and the genitive case (and even writing ē to differentiate between η and ε). This is almost a text-book example of how to refer to the origins of words, without creating confusion whether a word is Greek, Greek-derived, Latinized Greek or just plain Latin. And this version: "The specific epithet (oligantha) is from the ancient Greek words oligos (ὀλίγος) meaning "few" and anthos (ἄνθος) meaning "flower"..." actually mirrors the approach as been used in the first edition of Sharr's Western Australian Plant Names and Their Meanings. In case you would have access to the first edition of Sharr, I think you could better use this one for the origin of words (as it is less ambiguous) with possibly using the third edition for checking whether the specific epithet applies to a certain genus and for the additional information that might be added in subsequent editions. Wimpus (talk) 05:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your trouble Wimpus,

I accept that to a Greek linguist, the earlier editions of Sharr may be more acceptable. However, Alex George who edited the third edition wrote in the "Preface to the Third Edition", on page 8 (in case you don't have access to it):

"Whereas Ali often went back to the original words from which botanical terms were derived (eg. Petalostylis from G. petalon a leaf, bot. petal + stylos a pillar, bot. style) I have simplified most entries by just giving the latter. I have also amended the derivation for adjectival epithets such as those ending in -florus. Instead of saying that they are derived from nouns (flos, floris), I have used the more usual -florus (-flowered)."

"Likewise, I have simplified or standardised words such as those from Greek that are strictly spelt with a 'k', thus callistos (not kallistos), carpos (not karpos). Only for those that retain the 'k' in the scientific name have I retained that spelling for the source, e.g. katatonus. As pointed out by William Stearn in his Botanical Latin, diacritics are not used in this language or in botanical names and, therefore, they have been deleted in this edition."

I take that to mean that George has also simplifed the noun anthos to -anthus (-flowered) and omitted ὀλίγος and ἄνθος because "diacritics are not used in this language or in botanical names".

Ali Sharr clearly had a love of the flora of Western Australia - George writes "It was a huge labour of love for him." But Sharr was a librarian, not a botanist. It was Sharr who asked George to write the third edition. ("His gentle inspiration has been my constant companion".) George is a prolific professional botanist and taxonomist. (Perhaps "was" as he is now retired.) I accept that a Greek scholar would prefer the earlier version but it is less in conformity with modern botanical usage. Gderrin (talk) 06:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the verbatim quote. The unfortunate consequence of simplying the etymology, as executed by George, is that readers would actually belief that -anthus'(or similar words/word-parts) is really Greek. In case, this "modern" approach would be a clear improvement, why would we have numerous discussions about whether certain words or word-forming elements are or are not Greek? George shouldn't have fixed something that wasn't broke. As, the Google-books link to the first edition of Sharr shows, etymology can be presented with less ambiguity.

Considering the diacritics: "As pointed out by William Stearn in his Botanical Latin, diacritics are not used in this language or in botanical names and, therefore, they have been deleted in this edition." William Stearn indicated (1988, p. 260) "Greek words are given without accents, these being irrelevant to its purpose." Diacritics are accents, like the acute accent, grave accent or the circumflex, but also the rough and smooth breathing. Stearn is however using the rough and smooth breathing. The part "this language" is actually ancient Greek, Stearn refers to. On the same page: "As stated by F. K. Smith & T. W. Melluish (Teach Yourself Greek ; 1947): 'The writing of accents is a conservative tradition from which we might with advantage break away. The ancient Greeks themselves never wrote them. ... Accents o not appear in manuscripts before the seventh century A.D. The Greek language, however is quite intelligible without accents. Sapho and Plato did not need them. We may well be rid of an unnecessary burden.' However, it is still a tradition and still common to use for Greek script, even on Wikipedia. Wimpus (talk) 14:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

And the Code seems to use diacritics as well in Article 60A.1 for ὑάκινθος and ῥοδόδενδρον, but in Article 62 seems to forget to write the smooth breathing in οσμή and άνθος (although both have an acute accent), confuse acute accent and circumflex when writing χείλος (correct: χεῖλος). It seems that there is not one single policy for all botanical sources to write Greek script without diacritics, although errors seems to be made occasionally.Wimpus (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

References