Talk:Ernemann Kino I

Kino

The article says:

The German word Kino for cinema has been derived from that camera type name.

What is the source for this assertion? -- Hoarier 17:13, 6 February 2012 (PST)

I looked up http://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/Kino which states that Kino is a German contraction of Kinematograph...but more work may be needed...--Heritagefutures 19:08, 6 February 2012 (PST)

Yes, I saw that, as well as other material that points toward its being the German cognate/adaptation of the Lumière brothers' French coining. But it wasn't sourced (and no date was given). There's also a very old (English-language) dictionary of German etymology at archive.org (legible PDF, atrocious OCR'd text version), but this doesn't mention "Kino" and anyway is ancient. The German language is lucky in having first-rate dictionaries; unfortunately I don't have any with me now, and will have to check when I'm next in the library, unless somebody beats me to it (please do!).

In the meantime, I'll say that this is a "textbook case" of a straightforward assertion of a fact that cannot be independently known by anyone and that requires authoritative sourcing. Sadly, C-W seems stuffed with assertions that seem to be off the contributors' heads. Consider:

the famous camera maker Ernemann's still cameras are nearly forgotten despite of their proper quality (here)

Untrue. The first reference book I look at is the Oxford Companion to the Photograph. This has very few articles on particular cameras. (Consider: it lacks an article on Canon or the Canon anything.) But it does have an article on the Ermanox: such is its historical significance in the hands of Erich Salomon and Felix H. Man. I don't know how OCP got into the hands of the rather dodgy answers.com, but here is the article, which would have just been a google away. -- Hoarier 19:42, 6 February 2012 (PST)

Just checked the online version of the Deutsches Wörterbuch von Jacob Grimm und Wilhelm Grimm a valuable source (1851-1951; with supplements until 1960) but no entry Kino

I did find: Kino, Kinora, --> Kinematograph, S. 20 in: Meyers Großes Konversationslexikon. Ein Nachschlagewerk des allgemeinen Wissens. Sechste, gänzlich neubearbeitete und vermehrte Auflage. Leipzig und Wien 1905-1909. Vol. 6 column 27.

When I then looking up the cross reference Kinematograph one gets a long article on the Cinematograph. That contains this sentence: "In neuerer Zeit werden kleine Kinematographen unter dem Namen Kino von Ernemann in Dresden für Zwecke der Amateurphotographie in den Handel gebracht." (i.e. In recent times small-sized cinematographs for use in amateur photography have been sold by Ernemann in Dresden under the name of Kino.). Ibid. vol. 6 col. 20.

And I fully agree with you on the number of assertions that are made in CW. We can do with better referencing, unless based on ocular inspection of a physical camera.--Heritagefutures 23:36, 6 February 2012 (PST)

Grimm was a dictionary that I had in mind. Thank you for bothering to look! Later, I'll try elsewhere. -- Hoarier 23:58, 6 February 2012 (PST)

The Brockhaus (competition encyclopaedia to Meyers), 14th edition of 1908 does not have the term (the kino entry there refers to the plant).--Heritagefutures 01:47, 7 February 2012 (PST)

One more point, though, if you look at the cross-reference in Meyers 6th ed again then we have: Kino, Kinora, --> Kinematograph, S. 20 then we find that [Kinora ] refers to a brand / type of projection device as well... So Meyers used a commercial brand name and referred the look up to the generic, overarching entry...so not so far fetched that the same happened with Kino...and that is somewhat borne out by the fact that The Brockhaus ignores both, as they did not seem to espouse commercial names as look-up terms--Heritagefutures 01:56, 7 February 2012 (PST)

If you've already looked in Brockhaus then I'm not at all sure that I'll find anything else to look in. If I can't, then perhaps the claim could be reworded to fit Meyer more closely -- but then it would be so vague that I don't know if it would be worth saying. -- Hoarier 04:26, 7 February 2012 (PST)

What we need is access to a Meyer's Fifth Ed (1893 to 1897), which predates the Ernemann Kino by five years and see if the term is in there...I own the 3rd ed (far too early 1874-78), it's not in the fourth ed (1885-90 , which is online) and the 6th ed is online and has been cited above...--Heritagefutures 06:20, 8 February 2012 (PST)

But would a Lexikon have very new words even if these words existed at the time? I'd have guessed that the newer the edition, the more reliable its coverage of older words (let alone younger ones) would be -- but I must confess that I'm only familiar with the spines of these German monsters, and have rarely looked inside any of them. (A pity that there's no newer version of this online!) -- Hoarier 06:39, 8 February 2012 (PST)

It all depends on the editor of the time. Clearly the sixth edition of Meyers has the term as a crossreference, while the concurrent Brockhaus does not. I have no access to other sets where I live, and I doubt that the National Library holds the other editions, but I'll check next time I am in Canberra. And interestingly, while the Grimm has been maintained for many years with supplemental volumes, Kino never made it...

Found an on-line version of the Duden, the German standard text for spelling, like the OED for English, and that states that Kino is a shorthand/contraction for Kinematograf--Heritagefutures 07:22, 8 February 2012 (PST)