Disputatio:Socolata
E Vicipaedia
Index |
[recensere] Spelling
We had a discussion on this somewhere, didn't we? I don't know of any Latin words that begin with Sch-, so I suspect we'll find a better spelling than this one.
Wormius, recommended to me by Iustinus, uses Cacao for the plant and its bean, Chocolate for the product, both probably indeclinable. See this page. Should we go with that? Andrew Dalby 13:15, 8 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
- Disputatio:Pagina_prima#Chocolate_.3D_Tzocolate.3F is where the discussion was. I prefer something indeclinable than "schocolata" for sure.--Ioshus (disp) 13:27, 8 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
- Why not declination: socolata, socolatae, socolatae etc. vel Smith/Hall chocolatum, -i, -o, etc. PONS: chocolata, -ae, -ae, etc. --Alex1011 13:48, 8 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
There are plenty of Latin words that start with sch-, it's just a silly way to represent [∫] (though from another point of view, it's no sillier than sh or ch). The word I usually use, and have used on wiki before, is the biological theobroma--apparently calqued off a native word. But asside from that there are plenty of Latinized spellings. Let's start listing attestations in an organized format. --Iustinus 16:53, 8 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, of course there are! I've been out of schola for too long. Andrew Dalby 22:01, 8 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
It does seem that socolāta is by far the most widely attested spelling in out 20th century sources. Wish we could find some more stuff the 16th century and on though. --Iustinus 00:46, 9 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
[recensere] Attestations
- 1655, Wormii Museum Wormianum, cap. 24, p. 191
- "sed usum potissimum in potu habet, quem ex illo conficiunt Chocolate dicto..."
- 1870 Smith's English-Latin Dictionary (chocolatum)
- 1991 Lexicon Auxiliare (socolata, choccolata, cacaotica)
- 1992, Lexicon Recentis Latinitatis, Vol. I, p. 170
- cioccolatino 1 socolatae quadrŭla, f; ~ pastillŭlus. 2 pilŭla dulcorata, f. Syn: globulus saccharo conditus.
- cioccolato 1 socolata, ae, f; cfr Lat, 31, 1983, 190 2 socolatae potio, f; ~ sorbitio.
- 1995 Iohannis Traupman New College Latin & English Dictionary ed. 2
- chococlate [sic] s chocolat·um, -ī n
- 1998, PONS, p. 331
- Schokolade, f 1 socolata, ae, f; vgl. Lat, 31, 1983, 190 2 socolatae potio, f; ~ sorbitio.
- 2002, Calepinus Novus, "Français – Latin", p. 32
- chocolat ¶ socolā́ta, ae f. [N. Gross, « Esculenta et potulenta », in : Vox Latina, 56, p. 170]
- chocolat (au -) ¶ socolā́teus, a, um [[N. Gross, « Esculenta et potulenta », in : Vox Latina, 52, p. 160 et Vox Latina, 56, p. 170]
- 2002, Thesaurus germanicus latinus "Menge-Güthling": Schocolata
- 2003 Traupman, Conversational Latin for Oral Proficiency, ed. 3
- chocolate socolā́t·a, -ae f
- 347 chocolate socolâta, ae* f. (Mod. Gr. σοκολάτα)
- 347 chocolate bar lamella socolâtina* (v. e socolâta)
- 347 chocolate: cacao < EL: κακάο
- 347 ice cream glacies (dulcis v. mulsa v. edûlis v. esculenta), nix (dulcis v. mulsa v. edûlis v. esculenta); chocolate (or vanilla or strawberry) ice cream glacies e socolâta (v. vanilla v. fragis)
[recensere] Decision time?
It certainly doesn't appear that schocolata has many votes; that really looks to me like an insistently Germanic spelling. But what to move to? There may be a majority for socolata, but plenty of takers for chocolata and chocolatum. Any views? Andrew Dalby 20:37, 15 Maii 2007 (UTC)
- In view of the Greek spelling, why would anybody prefer the German? If it matters, I vote for the (authoritatively attested) nomen substantivum socolata, -ae, f., et nomen adiectivum socolateus, -a, -um, but I wouldn't cringe at siocolata and siocolatum. The spellings chocolata and chocolatum look less Latinlike. IacobusAmor 20:55, 15 Maii 2007 (UTC)
- I guess that the first mention to chocolate must be a the chronicle writers of Indies, that would write if not in Latin, they would have written in rather archaic Spanish. It may be a good way to look for the oldest attestation... maybe...--Xaverius 21:50, 15 Maii 2007 (UTC)
- And es:Chocolate gives the etymology coming from nahuatl xocolatl, that the first Spaniards called chocahuatl - could it be turned into chocahautle, -is?--Xaverius 21:56, 15 Maii 2007 (UTC)
- This "cho" = [tʃo], and the best approximation of that in the Classical Latin alphabet, pronounced according to what we know of Classical Latin pronunciation, could be sio, or even tsio. + Question: "chocahuatl - could it be turned into chocahautle, -is?" No, because Nahua -ahuatl = Classical Latin -avatl(i)(a/um): and siocoavatlium (and even siocoavata) has too many syllables for comfort. The old Romans might have shortened it, much as we apparently do. IacobusAmor 00:18, 16 Maii 2007 (UTC)
- And es:Chocolate gives the etymology coming from nahuatl xocolatl, that the first Spaniards called chocahuatl - could it be turned into chocahautle, -is?--Xaverius 21:56, 15 Maii 2007 (UTC)
- I guess that the first mention to chocolate must be a the chronicle writers of Indies, that would write if not in Latin, they would have written in rather archaic Spanish. It may be a good way to look for the oldest attestation... maybe...--Xaverius 21:50, 15 Maii 2007 (UTC)
- Socolata indeed seems to be the most logical choice from the point of view of latin pronunciation and history of atttestations. But perhaps it would also be wise to mention schocolata, chocolata and chocolatum as possible alternatives.Rafaelgarcia 00:29, 16 Maii 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with that. We don't want to invent a form when there are lots of acceptable attested forms in modern Latin already. Moreover, socolata, while quite distinct from the spellings in the commonest modern languages, is still easy for the average reader to recognize. A good neutral choice. Andrew Dalby 08:47, 16 Maii 2007 (UTC)
[recensere] Pasta Theobromae
I see pasta theobromae has been added as a possible name. Honestly, i like the idea, but I have two problems with it:
- It cites de:Schokolade as its authority, and I can't find it on that page.
- Theobroma is actually third declension (theobroma, -tis, n.), scientific coinings like "theobromin" notwithstanding.
--Iustinus 17:11, 12 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
- I think Rolandus added it (on 12 March). Whoever it was had a good reason. It was on the German page at that time: see the first sentence of [1]! However, since it isn't there any more (it was deleted 7 days later) that's not much of a source, is it? Andrew Dalby 17:33, 12 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
[recensere] Not quite apt illustration?
The present illustration might be apter for an article on chocolates (usually chocolate-covered confections featuring a fondant center) than it is for an article on chocolate: it illustrates countable objects (chocolates), not an uncountable mass (chocolate). IacobusAmor 02:08, 3 Septembris 2007 (UTC)