Message 2001-02-0082: David M's orthography question

Wed, 21 Feb 2001 12:59:33 -0500

[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

  

Feedback to <mike@indexdata.com> is welcome!