Talk:Bourbon virus

RFV discussion: October 2019–July 2020

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

Bourbon virus

It's English, and for example in German in would be ungrammatical. --Marontyan (talk) 03:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

It's a translingual proper noun. Its validity in such use is sanctioned by the ICTV. Is San Francisco also ungrammatical in German in your opinion?

Do you doubt that one can find three citations of use of the term in works not written in Engliah? DCDuring (talk) 04:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

This German textbook goes so far as to incorporate Bourbon virus into a German compound word. DCDuring (talk) 04:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

That it is translingual, it questioned and needs to be attested. The provided citations are English as is the ICTV page. "international" (as in "International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses") doesn't mean translingual.

That German work has Bourbon-Virus which is grammatically correct and not Bourbon virus. --Marontyan (talk) 09:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

The translation of translingual Bourbon virus into Persian is ویروس بوربن (virus burbon). The fact that such translations exists does not invalidate the translingual quality of scientific viral species nomenclature, one possible objection being that the official ICTV Master Species List has not yet been updated since the discovery of this species, so theoretically another name may be assigned to the species than that given by its discoverers. However, that would be rather unheard of. Here is a use of “Bourbon virus”] in an Italian text, and here one in a Dutch text.  --Lambiam 12:37, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

The point of translingual taxonomic names is that they are supposed to work in running text (or parentheses) in any language to make clear what the authors of the works involved are referring to. They are not considered taxonomic names if they are transcribed. But naming is tailored to the audience of the works. Textbooks (especially the more basic ones) may make more use of vernacular names. Scholarly works aimed at the worldwide scientific community use the scientific names and may strictly avoid vernacular names because they are often polysemic or otherwise confusing. DCDuring (talk) 21:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I suppose that the entry has jumped the gun since the term has not been sanctioned by ICTV. It may turn out not to be a new species. DCDuring (talk) 21:37, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• The ICTV list doesn't matter at all. The term exists in English anyway, and might exist translingually regardless of the ICTV.
• Are the Dutch and the Italian usage durably archived? If not, the usages don't matter (as for WT:CFI). If so, is it enough for an "Translingual" entry or does it need more cites (like 2 more Dutch or 2 more Italian or 3 French cites which would be enough to attest a WT:WDL term)?
• BTW: As for commoness google web indicates the following (a > b : a is more common than b, a ~ b : a and b are almost equally common, a : a is not found):
  • Dutch: "het Bourbon-virus" ~ "het Bourbon virus" (both quite rare) > "het Bourbonvirus" (very rare)
  • French: "le virus de Bourbon" > "le virus Bourbon" > "le Bourbon virus" (rare)
  • German: "das Bourbon-Virus" > "der Bourbon-Virus" (quite rare) > "das Bourbonvirus" (very rare)
  • Italian: "il virus Bourbon" ~ "il Bourbon virus" ~ "il virus borbonico" (all quite rare) > "il virus de Bourbon"
  • Spanish: "el virus de Bourbon" > "el virus Bourbon" > "el virus borbónico" > "el Bourbon virus"

--Marontyan (talk) 09:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

A formal recognition of a name by one of the international bodies (ICTV, LPSN, ICZN, ICN) is presumptive evidence supporting translingual use. We use it as a shortcut.

The number-of-cites question has not been addressed explicitly.

Nor have we ever explicitly addressed whether a listing in one of the taxonomic databases is a use or a mention or whether we would considered it durably archived (not even in those cases (like ICTV) where the old lists are apparently retained).

Moreover, we haven't reached consensus on whether use of a Latin-like specific epithet in a taxonomic name would be a use in Latin of the epithet.

I think the only consensus about taxonomic names is that they are useful to disambiguate vernacular names, that some of them have entered discourse embedded in everyday language, and that some readers might want to know what they mean.

We try to elucidate meaning by taxonomic placement and circumsciption, by etymology, by ostensive definition (images), vernacular names, translation tables, geographic distribution info, and significance to people. DCDuring (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

"We use it" - can you point me to any policy which explicitly says so? (While ICZN is Latin-based and has some kind of tradition, ICTV is not and has not.)

A listing in a database is a mention and not a usage (WT:CFI#Conveying meaning → w:use-mention distinction). And mentions aren't enough as for WT:CFI.

If the taxonomic name is used in Latin, it could at least be Latin. If the name isn't used in Latin at all, it clearly is not Latin, cp. WT:CFI, French foot or German Handy which aren't English, Talk:albifrons, Talk:iroquoianus. --Marontyan (talk) 16:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to propose an explicit policy that overrides past practice. Perhaps a procrustean bed is just what is needed for Translingual entries. DCDuring (talk) 20:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• Converted to English. DCDuring (talk) 07:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)