[Previous by date - Re: The starting phase of the PhyloCode and other issues]
[Next by date - PhyloCode Alphabet]
[Previous by subject - Crowns, Panstems, and their Correspondence to each other]
[Next by subject - Death of the PhyloCode?]
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 12:59:33 -0500
From: "Moore, Gerry" <gerrymoore@bbg.org>
To: PhyloCode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: David M's orthography question
DM: Why is Article 17.1. so restrictive? I suggest to treat all = diacritical signs like diaereses in Note 17.1.1. Today, scientific names come from languages around the globe, for most of which Latin respectively = English simply hasn't got enough letters. Why not allow Cha=F1aresuchus, = U=F1enlagia or Gracilisuchus stipanicicorum? (Optimistically assuming that your mail = reader programs can read this... :-] ) Or tone marks on Chinese names? And apostrophes (Articles 17.2. and 18.7.) are very useful in transcribing = some languages; a few months ago, the Chinese sauropod dinosaur = Chuanjiesaurus a'naensis has been named, the apostrophe indicating that the name of = the village near which the fossil was found is composed of the syllables a = and na instead of an and a. (It has lost the apostrophe because of ICZN, of course.)=20 The article appears to draw heavily from the botanical code's rules on orthography. The rule is restrictive with regards to diacritical marks because they are not a part of the Latin language, and it is generally assumed that scientific names of organisms are to be written in Latin (Principle V of the botanical code; there is no analogous principle in = the PhyloCode). If the code were to allow more flexibility with regards to orthography, we might end up with scientific names being not so much = Latin but representing some sort of Esperanto. By sticking with Latin, the orthography rules can stay fairly simple, since established Latin = custom can be followed (well that's the thinking, although when we start = incorporating non-Latin words into Latin things get messy).=20 DM: BTW, not all pairs of dots on vowels are diaereses. =E4, =F6, and = =FC, at least 2 of which occur in languages like German, Swedish, Hungarian, Turkish, Finnish, Estonian etc., are sounds different from a, o, u and rarely have a vowel in front of them. Are these to be treated as = diaereses? (One example comes to mind -- Donald F. Glut: Dinosaurs. The = Encyclopedia, McFarland 1997 uses *Velocipes guerichi*, *V. gurichi* and *V. = g=FCrichi* on the same page to describe a dinosaur scrap from Germany.) The dieresis (two dots placed above a vowel) is a standard mark in = Spanish (sometimes used with the vowel "u") and in Portugese (sometimes used = with the vowels "i" and "u"; although the grave is often substituted). = However, the dieresis can be used in any language (including Latin) using the = Latin alphabet (it is also used in Greek), to indicate that a vowel is to be pronounced (e.g., Iso=EBtes, Bront=EB) The umlaut (also represented by = two dots placed above a vowel) is used in many languages (including the = Finno-Ugric, Germanic, and Turkish examples you cite) to indicate vowel mutation = (i.e., a vowel with an umlaut is pronounced differently than a vowel without = one). The umlaut is not used in the Latin language. Indeed to the best of my knowledge the only special character that is used in Latin is the = dieresis. Since diacritical marks do not generally occur in Latin, Latinizing a = name requires the suppression of the marks along with transcription as = needed. In your G=FCrich example, the epithet would be converted to "guerichi" (I = believe botanists would write "guerichii"). If there is one place where the PhyloCode can follow the other codes' lead I suspect it is orthography! = Cheers, Gerry=20 Gerry Moore Research Taxonomist Brooklyn Botanic Garden 1000 Washington Avenue Brooklyn, New York 11225-1099 718-623-7332=20