[Previous by date - Re: PhyloCode Alphabet]
[Next by date - Re: GALTONIA THE FLOWER]
[Previous by subject - Re: Crown groups mainstream?]
[Next by subject - Re: Death of the PhyloCode?]
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 00:06:14 +0100
From: David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>
To: PhyloCode mailing list <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Re: David M's orthography question
> 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 [...]). Same, AFAIK, for the zoological code. > 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. [...] > (well that's the thinking, although when we start incorporating > non-Latin words into Latin things get messy) This is what has already been happening for quite some time, at least in the zoological code. Just a few examples -- there is a fossil snake from Australia called _Wonami naracoortensis_, an enormous pterosaur _Quetzalcoatlus northropi_, a Middle Triassic erythrosuchian [for those unfamiliar with basal archosaurs: imagine a crocodile-Komodo monitor hybrid that's running after you] from Russia called _Vjushkovia_, an odd Middle Jurassic mammal that was found near the village of Ambondromahabo in Madagascar and is therefore called _Ambondro mahabo_, a bird-or-something-similar from Australia called _Kakuru kujani_... yes, Latin letters are used, but one can't argue that these examples are by any means Latin, and some of them aren't even Latinized in the least. > By sticking with Latin, the > orthography rules can stay fairly simple, since established Latin custom can > be followed . What orthography rules? > The umlaut is not used in the Latin language. True. (Otherwise the Romans would probably have invented letters for these.) > Indeed to the best of my > knowledge the only special character that is used in Latin is the dieresis. The joke is, the Latin in which, say, Systema Naturae is written is quite an artificial thing. True classical Latin didn't use any signs other than pure letters; y and z were only used in Greek loan words and therefore were rare, j didn't yet exist (and originated as a calligraphic version of i), neither did u, and w was invented very late for Germanic loan words. > 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 Gürich 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! No problems with _Velocipes guerichi_ (it's a practically useless scrap anyway, nobody would name such a thing nowadays), but real, consequential Latinizing is rare. I can only think of one example (in my limited knowledge of names of extant species), the wombat genus _Vombatus_. It wouldn't be possible in many cases -- as I lamented, there was no sh in Latin, but in spite of this we have the above _Vjushkovia_, the Mongolian probable-bird _Shuvuuia_ (shuvuu meaning bird), the Chinese dinosaur _Mandschurosaurus_ (apparently modeled after German, which has another problem in this case, as I think this dsch should represent a voiced j)..., and nobody AFAIK has protested. AFAIK, the zoological code requires the emendation of unnecessary -ii into -i (in accord to Latin grammar), doesn't it?