Language desk
< May 25	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 27 >

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

May 26[edit]

Awkward Hebrew dual[edit]

When I saw "Tannaim", I figured it was the dual form of "Tann", but now I see that it's the plural form of "Tanna". I then saw that it was Aramaic, and Aramaic#Grammar says that the language lost its dual in regular circumstances (you'd use dual for ears, shoes, etc., but not merely two fingers or two palm trees). This led me to wonder about Hebrew. If "Tanna" occurred in Hebrew, what forms would its dual and plural take? "Tanna'aim" and "Tannaim"? "Tannaim" and "Tannim"? Wouldn't occur at all? Something else? Bear in mind that I only know a little about Hebrew and don't know Hebrew at all. Nyttend backup (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Hebrew dual is always -ayim, though, not -a'im. Tanna'im is the Hebrew plural of tanna, which is a borrowing from Aramaic. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 19:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend backup: I should note that the 'natural' dual for tanna would be tanna'ayim, though of course such a word would have no use in Modern Hebrew or even Mishnaic Hebrew. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 20:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of "gonopterine"[edit]

I can't find a definition of the word "gonopterine". I believe it's a shape. It is used to describe animals. I haven't been able to figure it out from a prefix either, but I think it must be from Latin or Greek. It is used once in English Wikipedia and it comes from a source on that page. Thank you, SchreiberBike | ⌨ 21:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SchreiberBike: I'm not entirely sure it's really a shape name; most uses in older taxonomy works (on Google Books, at least) suggest it's an adjective describing members of Gonopterinae, some sort of moth subfamily (haven't found its modern equivalent yet). הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 22:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SchreiberBike: And here we are: This paper on the classification of the Noctuoidea writes that Gonopterinae is a synonym for Scoliopteryginae. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 22:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And for a more in-the-weeds discussion well beyond my understanding, Here is a paper (Kühne & Speidel, 2004) that discusses all the various names the Gonopteri(n/d)ae have been called over the years. (Scroll to the end.) הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 22:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding what I couldn't. That leads me to the idea that "gonopterine" in that context means – like the genus Gonoptera which is a synonym of Scoliopteryx. So I will gloss it as "(similar in shape to the wings of Scoliopteryx)", which makes sense based on the pictures of the species in the two genera. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 01:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It says e.g. here that the prefix gono- can mean sexual or reproductive. And if course "-pter" means wing. However, fitting them together doesn't make a meaning that makes sense to me. --76.71.5.208 (talk) 23:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'd found that, but like you said, they don't seem to fit together. Unless the person who created the name explains, you never know what they were thinking (see the picture). SchreiberBike | ⌨ 01:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't really a word about the shape, per se, it is about the group. The sentence is saying that the shape of its wings is typical of the group it is in. Think of it as like "canine" or "equine". --Khajidha (talk) 01:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The earliest version of the term (based on the paper I linked to above) is Gonopteridae, which I've traced back to Achille Guénée, who introduces the term (attributing it to himself, by the abbreviation Gn.) in Histoire naturelle des insectes: Species général des lépidoptères (Vol 2) p. 393 without explicit explanation, but notes that the most distinct feature of the adult stage as their 'angular wings' (ailes anguleuses). In any case though, I agree with Khajidha about the significance of using the term. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 02:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While that may be the explanation, it isn't the origin - as I look into it further, it seems clear that "gonopteridae" was coined after genus Gonoptera, a deprecated name for Scoliopteryx, and apparently introduced by Latreille here with no explanation. For further rabbit holes, see the Natural History Museum at Tring's entry on Gonoptera. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 03:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If "Gonopterinae" is a deprecated synonym of "Scoliopteryginae", then "gonopterine" is an obsolete synonym of "scoliopterygine".^[1] As to the etymology of Gonoptera, considering the ailes anguleuses, I wonder if the namer was thinking of Greek γωνία (gōnía, "angle"), which as a prefix should have been Gonio-, but which as a suffix loses the ⟨ι⟩, as seen in polygone. --Lambiam 08:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here [[2]] it says about some "Gonoptera" Alae anteriores margine postico valde angulato ( unde nomen ); transversim lineatae ahud maculatae that is "Anterior wings with very angled posterior border - hence the name", so I think also that greek gonia = angle + ptera = wings was meant. But as you say, it should be gonioptera, as normally the prefix gono- refers to gonos = seed, procreation as in gonococcus. BTW I have a problem with this ahud: no dictionary seems to know, and aliud does not really fit. Some idea? 2003:F5:6F08:8200:3179:F503:CF2E:D769 (talk) 20:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC) Marco PB[reply]

Handwritten cursive alıud is easily misread as ahud by a typesetter not familiar with Latin. The cited book has several other occurrences of ahud, each time as a conjunction between two descriptive adjectives. I suppose the author wrote aliud; the intended meaning seems to be lineatae aut maculatae ("striped or else speckled"). --Lambiam 12:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, "a typesetter not familiar with Latin" is the key. I was wondering how a typical digitizing error could have occurred in an almost two hundred years old book. "A typesetter not familiar with Latin" is indeed the human equivalent of a faulty OCR scan. 2003:F5:6F08:8200:6C05:21DC:9237:7EDF (talk) 17:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC) Marco PB[reply]