May 2025

S M T W T F S
    1 23
45678910
11 1213141516 17
18 192021222324
25262728293031

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
elainegrey: Inspired by Grypping/gripping beast styles from Nordic cultures (Default)
Saturday, February 15th, 2020 09:28 am
Guessing at whether trees were native to Northern Europe by how many syllables are in the English word


* ash: Old English æsce, aexe, of Germanic origin; related to Dutch as and German Asche.
* beech: Old English bēce, of Germanic origin; related to Latin fagus ‘beech’, Greek phagos ‘edible oak’.
* birch: Old English bierce, birce, of Germanic origin; related to German Birke.
* elm: Old English, of Germanic origin; related to German dialect Ilm, and Swedish and Norwegian alm.
* oak: Old English āc, of Germanic origin; related to Dutch eik and German Eiche.
* pine: Old English, from Latin pinus, reinforced in Middle English by Old French pin.
* yew: Old English īw, ēow, of Germanic origin.

Nordic but not Anglo-Saxon trees

* fir: late Middle English: probably from Old Norse fyri- (recorded in fyriskógr ‘fir wood’).

The two syllable tree names that appear to have Anglo-saxon word roots are under-story trees

* apple: Old English æppel, of Germanic origin; related to Dutch appel and German Apfel. Probably originally for Malus sylvestris and then reappropriated with central Asian apples made their way to England.
* elder: Old English ellærn; related to Middle Low German ellern, elderne. Probably Sambucus racemosa
* hazel: Old English hæsel, of Germanic origin; related to Dutch hazelaar ‘hazel tree’, hazelnoot ‘hazelnut’, and German Hasel, from an Indo-European root shared by Latin corylus.

One syllable tress not native to northern Europe

* fig: Middle English: from Old French figue, from Provençal fig(u)a, based on Latin ficus.
* plane: late Middle English: from Old French, from Latin platanus, from Greek platanos, from platus ‘broad’. Looks like prior to 1492, just the Platanus orientalis would have been known to English speakers.

Two syllable trees not native to northern Europe

* cedar: Old English, from Old French cedre or Latin cedrus, from Greek kedros.
* cherry: Middle English: from Old Northern French cherise, from medieval Latin ceresia, based on Greek kerasos ‘cherry tree, cherry’.
* chestnut: early 16th century: from Old English chesten (from Old French chastaine, via Latin from Greek kastanea) + nut.
* cypress: Middle English: from Old French cipres, from late Latin cypressus, from Greek kuparissos.


I find i am most curious about two syllable maple: it doesn't appear likely that there were many significant native maples to Northern Europe

* maple: Old English mapel (as the first element of mapeltrēow, mapulder ‘maple tree’); used as an independent word from Middle English.

"The type species of the genus is the sycamore maple, Acer pseudoplatanus, the most common maple species in Europe." (More on this as i grouse about the word "sycamore") Not native to norther Europe but "native to Central Europe and Western Asia, from France eastwards to Ukraine, northern Turkey and the Caucasus and southwards in the mountains of northern Spain and Italy."
https://maplesociety.org/sites/default/files/deJongWorldwideMapleDiversity-vf.pdf

The tree name i find most annoying is sycamore. I grew up with the sweet gum, Liquidambar styraciflua, being called sycamore. When i moved to Philadelphia i became aware the American plane tree was called sycamore more commonly. (It is a tree much less prevalent in young southern American woods). Then i found in England sycamore belonged to a maple tree. And in the bible it refers to a fig. So in MY list of trees, sycamore is a useless term and just means that the leaves might be lobed. Ugh. "The name derives from the ancient Greek συκόμορος (sūkomoros) meaning "fig-mulberry"." At least figs and mulberries are in the same plant family, although not that close.
elainegrey: Inspired by Grypping/gripping beast styles from Nordic cultures (Default)
Wednesday, November 5th, 2014 07:22 am
The more i take these botany and biology classes, the more i think that plants are alien creatures to us animals.



Alien, in the sense that the common ancestor with animals was a single celled creature, and our evolution has been diverged for so very very long.

As long as physical laws are consistent, it seems likely that life elsewhere will be proteins, carbohydrates, lipids, and nucleic acids. If a biologist were to assert that any hydrocarbon based life must have to use DNA or RNA to communicate protein sequence information, i'd accept it as quite plausible. The relationship between the nucleic acid code and amino acids is determined by the physical shape of the molecules: what is interesting is that earth life doesn't make use of all the amino acids. New proteins could be part of the molecular machinery of other life.

General cell development seems pretty much chemistry and not something earth specific.

So, there are two classes of cells, those where there's just an inside the cell and an outside, and those where there are smaller units within the cell separated by a membrane. It's those smaller units that are likely to be different than ours based on what the abundant forms of energy are. And that is part of the fundamental difference between plants and animals: plants have one of these units that process energy, and we animals don't. Plants colonized the land long before animals: if animals hadn't come out to fill the niche available to creatures that moved, would plants have developed that facility? Watching the parasitic dodder in time lapse as it hunts out its prey plant is ... really creepy.

I remember how [livejournal.com profile] nellorat opined that timelapse was in general creepy. As i become more aware of the biology of plants, i find the timelapse images alien. Plants aren't just some background stage dressing. They really do have behavior in perceptual zones that are different than ours....

--==∞==--

Energy is mostly up around the house, which is good.
elainegrey: Inspired by Grypping/gripping beast styles from Nordic cultures (Default)
Thursday, May 30th, 2013 06:22 am
My personal computer is still in the hands of the apparently surly IT folks getting a new hard drive. Not sure what they are going to do about the partitioning of the disk.... I'm assuming i will be partitioning and configuring the machine again, obliterating what they insisted on doing.

--==∞==--

Yesterday was an early work day. In the late afternoon and evening i relaxed by looking for where specimens of the first six species of Bay Area lupines have been found. Two species i have photos, two species seem decidedly rare, and two species have something like an antique observation and a current but unreliable observation and notes that these observations seem out of the plant's natural range.

I'm imagining writing an essay about "lost lupines of the Bay Area" in attempts to look for some of the observations. Already i have found a rant about one botanist who didn't believe in evolution and so just went about collecting "new species" in association with one species. Google books has presented me with the article that described one of these species for the first time.

I am tickled at the thought of driving slowly up Mt Hamilton in search of one plant. It's not a botanical survey, but it will be enough for a story, i hope. Similar adventures must be undertaken for many other species.

--==∞==--

I did have an annoying moment with a colleague yesterday. I am trying to block out some of my mornings when i plan to drive in so i can have time for myself. He was a bit surly about the amount of time i had blocked out. I know it's bloody hard to schedule meetings between Europe and California, but i find the need for ME to be the flexible person to be frustratingly maddening.

Not that i have anyone to turn to. Maybe i will turn to my HR person. (Unlike some folks' workplace, my HR person is pretty good, and this is more of a general question about hours available not putting her in a place of having to choose sides.)