Draft talk:Stroma (philosophy)

Suggestions

I have some thoughts about improving readability (distinct from passing AFC).

1. I found the lead sentence difficult to follow.

The stroma (estroma), is for philosophical materialism the name of each part of the perceptible world, M_i(mundus adspectabilis)

Is stroma a name or a thing? Are the M_i the mundus adspectabilis or the parts of it, or, as described later, parts of the stromata? How is this rewrite in comparison:

In the philosophical materialism of Gustavo Bueno, stroma (Italian: estroma) is each part of the perceptible world (mundus adspectabilis).

2. There are a lot of one-sentence paragraphs. I suggest joining or expanding some. Others could be made into a bullet list, e.g. the three paragraphs defining M1, M2, and M3 in the Description section .

3. Look for phrasing that could be expressed in simpler or more idiomatic English. E.g. named as = called, name for = term.

Applying points 2 and 3 to the second and third sentences, plus adding some etymology:

These parts could be named as objects, entities, substances, etc., but the name of stroma is more precise according to Gustavo Bueno's description.

The name is a neologism collected from the Stromata text of Clement of Alexandria and from the stroma as a biological envelope

becomes

These parts could be called objects, entities, substances, etc., but the term stroma is more precise according to Bueno's description. The word is a neologism, from the Stromata text of Clement of Alexandria and the stroma as a biological envelope. Those uses are in turn derived from Greek strōmateis (στρωματεῖς, 'patchwork') and strōma (στρῶμα 'layer, bed').

4. The plural appears as both stromas and stromata; I would stick with stromata as the proper Greek plural form. Let's please not go down the path of "paninis".

. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 19:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC)