Greek vs. Latin
"Nonagon" has a Latin prefix and a Greek suffix. Why do so many people prefer this term?? Do they really know the difference between Latin and Greek?? HI188.8.131.52 19:52, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- In contrast, "quadrilateral" is a perfectly okay word; it is totally Latin, as opposed to "tetragon", which is totally Greek. "Nonagon", OTOH, is a mixture. A word of the same kind "nonagon" is would be "quadrigon" or "tetralateral". 184.108.40.206 20:19, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Nonagon is entirely Latin: it is an actual Latin word. The actual Greek word is enneagonon. --Eequor 20:36, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Where did you learn that "-gon" is a Latin suffix?? I always thought the correct Latin suffix was -"angle" or -"lateral". 220.127.116.11 21:50, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Latin does use the -gon suffix. Pentagon, octagon, nonagon, decagon, and undecagon are all words found in Latin. -angle, -gon, and -lateral additionally have different meanings. -angle refers to an angle, which is not exactly the same as a corner, which is -gon. -lateral refers to the sides. --Eequor 23:25, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- True or false: some of these words are words that came from Greek through Latin to English. 18.104.22.168 23:47, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I don't see how that matters. The point is, in English all of those words are identical to the Latin words; they were simply "borrowed". It's basically irrelevant that they were in turn derived from Greek words; modern English uses the Latin form, not the Greek form. Should we consider you to be an improper spelling of iu (Old High German) because that is the earliest known form of the word? --Eequor 04:26, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I think the best argument for enneagon is consistency. Almost all Greek words came into English through Latin, but the point is this, that Latin had its own set of native words (triangle, quadrangle, and similar ones with -lateral) and to confuse the prefixes is to ignore the difference between Latin and Greek. Another question is whether "nonagon" actually existed in classical Latin, and if we searched for it (I have no evidence at hand, we might find that nonagon was invented much more recently, perhaps by someone without much knowledge of Latin or Greek prefixes. If you wanted a fully Latin form, you could use *nonangle or *nonalateral. Unlike the word "television" (also a mix of Latin and Greek), nonagon is a chiefly technical term, so I think it makes sense to be consistent and use the Greek prefix ennea-. Lesgles 20:30, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Since I was a child I remember being taught in primary school that a 9 sided shape is called a 'nonagon'. Frankly I have never EVER heard of the word 'enneagon'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 23:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Should this page not be moved to Nonagon, rather than redirected from there? Mathworld uses "nonagon" as the standard term (see http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Nonagon.html). Jacquerie27 13:32, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree with moving this page: Please move to Nonagon, as a number of well established dictionaries do not know the term Enneagon, I think the Wikipedia should be to inform, not reducate the world of a slight mistake in the way that Latin is used instead of Greek. -- Chris Ashley
I agree as well. The "List of Geometric Shapes" should likewise be modified. The question for Wikipedia is not "what should the word for a 9-sided polygon be?", but "what is the word for a 9-sided polygon?". And in practice, "nonagon" is used far more often. One could add a line to the article, something like "Although some have maintained that enneagon is linguistically preferable, nonagon is the commonly used term.". -- Frank Adams-Watters
"Exact" - Regular Nonagon
I don't agree with this statement:
Although a regular enneagon is not constructable with compass and straightedge there are methods of constructing that are very close approximations.
--Paulancka 18:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)paulancka
- Your agreement aside, it's still mathematically impossible. See Constructible polygon for more. Your animation shows a NON compass-and-straight-edge construction, so it is not relevant.
User @Riventree: has added statements about the accuracy of several approximate constructions. While there is nothing wrong with this, they are still unsourced results and need citations. In an earlier revert I put "lacking context" and "poorly written" in the edit summary. In this I was mistaken in attributing these problems to Riventree, and I apologize. However, these problems still exist. This is especially true about the second two animated constructions and the brief write-ups associated with them. None of this material is sourced (the one citation is to a wiki and therefore not considered reliable) so I can't even begin to rewrite the section. The first two animations in this section are somewhat self-explanatory, but I think that this is a poor way to deliver content and, no matter how well executed, still needs written explanatory remarks. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 18:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
- Concur, strongly, about "no matter how well executed, still needs written explanatory remarks". I tip my hat for "I was mistaken", that was kind.
Requested move 14 January 2020
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Enneagram of Process and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 8#Enneagram of Process until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 12:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Nine (Enneagram) (Alt. Description) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 8#Nine (Enneagram) (Alt. Description) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 12:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Law of Nine and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 8#Law of Nine until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 12:45, 8 May 2022 (UTC)