[Previous by date - Re: Minor rewordings of Article 17?]
[Next by date - Minor Rewordings of Article 7?]
[Previous by subject - Fw: Gender of species names?]
[Next by subject - Fw: Monotypic genera and the PhyloCode]
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 23:46:43 +0200
From: [unknown]
To: PML <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Fw: Minor rewordings of Article 17?
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_t9E7wBrSw6iVAvs0FoEVew) Content-type: text/plain;=09charset=3D"iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable ----- Original Message ----- =46rom: David Marjanovic To: Guy Davies Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 11:45 PM Subject: Re: Minor rewordings of Article 17? Sorry... forgot to send this to the list. As for "pronounceable", I would ask pronounceable for whom? I don't think this question ends anywhere. There are languages withou= t =3D m. There are languages without any labials at all (m, b, p, w, v, f, = to =3D mention just those that occur in English). Few, if any, sounds are = =3D universal except "a", and even this is true only if we use that term = =3D sufficiently widely (the English and the Spanish/French/etc. versions= =3D are not identical). On the other hand, there is a dinosaur name with a palatal click = =3D (probably nasal, too): *Nqwebasaurus*, named after a place in the = =3D Xhosa-speaking part of South Africa. Although English is the lingua franca of the scientific community, = =3D pronunciation of large numbers of ordinary English words remains = =3D problematic for many native speakers of other languages. This is a = =3D problem that the inventors of artificial languages that pretend to = =3D lingua franca status, have already tackled: Ido, Novial, Volap=3DFCk,= =3D Interglossa, Esperanto and Interlingua. No, they have not. Esperanto, for example, has not even tried. =3D http://www.xibalba.demon.co.uk/jbr/ranto Ido is nothing but a failed = =3D reform of Esperanto that hardly took phonetics into account... and so= it =3D continues. The original version of Volap=3DFCk lacked r, to make it e= asier =3D for the Chinese, but it's still a Euroclone -- it had just about = =3D everything else that is common in Europe but absent from most or all = =3D Chinese languages. I have never got my tongue round Nopalxochia for example, even thou= gh =3D I speak several languages. For many people words that start with s = =3D followed by a consonant are just as tongue twisting as lx is for me. = =3D Excluding x was a good choice since its pronunciation is culturally = =3D ambiguous and phonetically redundant. I guess Nopalxochia is a Central or South American name... if so, = =3D chances are good that the x is simply* pronounced "sh", based on Old = =3D Spanish and/or Portuguese. (Personally I don't find "lks" difficult = =3D either...) This is a good reason to keep the letter x. BTW, lots of = =3D letters are phonetically redundant in lots of languages. German and = =3D Italian speakers would immediately say that z is just as redundant as= x, =3D because z is pronounced ts in German and Italian -- and (usually) in = =3D Latin and Greek when pronounced by native speakers of German or Itali= an! =3D The Chinese might say that q is redundant because (in the Pinyin = =3D transcription) q is pronounced like what could also be written tx... = no, =3D I won't explain here what sound x symbolises there! Besides, although phonetically redundant in Latin (and transcribed = =3D Greek), x is quite common there. By far most scientific names are bas= ed =3D on classical languages, and (if only for the sake of tradition) this = =3D will likely continue for quite a while. And what on Earth is c? Therefore I think we should keep all 26 letters (at least). * Apart from Classical Latin and any version of Greek, languages like= =3D Finnish lack that sound or anything similar. There are also Chinese = =3D "dialects" without such a sound, so we're talking about tens or hundr= eds =3D of millions of people who have never said "sh" in their lives. Unfortunately any syntactic rules governing pronunciation will = =3D inevitably require the Phylocodisation of the natural names of botani= sts =3D and places when these form the basis of new botanic names This would probably enrage lots of botanists, zoologists, mycologists= , =3D protistologists, microbiologists, and who knows whom else. At this st= age =3D of the development of the PhyloCode we should really try not to make = any =3D more enemies than we already have.=3D --Boundary_(ID_t9E7wBrSw6iVAvs0FoEVew) Content-type: text/html;=09charset=3D"iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD><TITLE></TITLE> <META http-equiv=3D3DContent-Type =3D content=3D3Dtext/html;charset=3D3DISO-8859-1> <META content=3D3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2722" name=3D3DGENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY text=3D3D#000000 bgColor=3D3D#ffffff> <DIV style=3D3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- <DIV style=3D3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> = <A=3D20 title=3D3Ddavid.marjanovic@gmx.at =3D href=3D3D"mailto:david.marjanovic@gmx.at">David=3D20 Marjanovic</A></DIV> <DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=3D3Dguy@dsv.su.se =3D href=3D3D"mailto:guy@dsv.su.se">Guy=3D20 Davies</A></DIV> <DIV><B>Sent:</B> Monday, September 26, 2005 11:45 PM</DIV> <DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: Minor rewordings of Article 17?<BR></DIV></D= IV> <DIV><FONT face=3D3DArial size=3D3D2>Sorry... forgot to send this to = the=3D20 list.</FONT></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=3D3Dltr=3D20 style=3D3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; = =3D BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV>As for "pronounceable", I would ask pronounceable for=3D20 whom?</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV dir=3D3Dltr>I don't think this question ends anywhere. There are= =3D languages=3D20 without m. There are languages without any labials at all (m, b, p, w= , =3D v, f, to=3D20 mention just those that occur in English). Few, if any, sounds are = =3D universal=3D20 except "a", and even this is true only if we use that term sufficient= ly =3D widely=3D20 (the English and the Spanish/French/etc. versions are not =3D identical).</DIV> <DIV dir=3D3Dltr> </DIV> <DIV dir=3D3Dltr>On the other hand, there is a dinosaur name wit= h a =3D palatal=3D20 click (probably nasal, too): *Nqwebasaurus*, named after a place in t= he=3D20 Xhosa-speaking part of South Africa.</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=3D3Dltr=3D20 style=3D3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; = =3D BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV>Although English is the lingua franca of the scientific =3D community,=3D20 pronunciation of large numbers of ordinary English words remains = =3D problematic=3D20 for many native speakers of other languages. This is a problem that= =3D the=3D20 inventors of artificial languages that pretend to lingua franca = =3D status, have=3D20 already tackled: Ido, Novial, Volap=3DFCk, Interglossa, Esperanto a= nd=3D20 Interlingua.</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV dir=3D3Dltr>No, they have not. Esperanto, for example, has =3D <STRONG>not even=3D20 tried</STRONG>. <A=3D20 href=3D3D"http://www.xibalba.demon.co.uk/jbr/ranto">http://www.xibalb= a.demo=3D n.co.uk/jbr/ranto</A> Ido=3D20 is nothing but a failed reform of Esperanto that hardly took phonetic= s =3D into=3D20 account... and so it continues. The original version of Volap=3DFCk l= acked =3D r, to=3D20 make it easier for the Chinese, but it's still a Euroclone -- it had = =3D just about=3D20 everything else that is common in Europe but absent from most or all = =3D Chinese=3D20 languages.</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=3D3Dltr=3D20 style=3D3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; = =3D BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV>I have never got my tongue round Nopalxochia for example, even= =3D though I=3D20 speak several languages. For many people words that start with s = =3D followed by a=3D20 consonant are just as tongue twisting as lx is for me. Excluding x = was =3D a good=3D20 choice since its pronunciation is culturally ambiguous and =3D phonetically=3D20 redundant.</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV dir=3D3Dltr>I guess Nopalxochia is a Central or South American = =3D name... if so,=3D20 chances are good that the x is simply* pronounced "sh", based on Old = =3D Spanish=3D20 and/or Portuguese. (Personally I don't find "lks" difficult either...= ) =3D This is a=3D20 good reason to keep the letter x. BTW, lots of letters are phonetical= ly=3D20 redundant in lots of languages. German and Italian speakers would = =3D immediately=3D20 say that z is just as redundant as x, because z is pronounced ts in = =3D German and=3D20 Italian -- and (usually) in Latin and Greek when pronounced by native= =3D speakers=3D20 of German or Italian! The Chinese might say that q is redundant becau= se =3D (in the=3D20 Pinyin transcription) q is pronounced like what could also be written= =3D tx... no,=3D20 I won't explain here what sound x symbolises there!</DIV> <DIV dir=3D3Dltr> </DIV> <DIV dir=3D3Dltr>Besides, although phonetically redundant in Latin (a= nd =3D transcribed=3D20 Greek), x is quite common there. By far most scientific names are bas= ed =3D on=3D20 classical languages, and (if only for the sake of tradition) this wil= l =3D likely=3D20 continue for quite a while.</DIV> <DIV dir=3D3Dltr> </DIV> <DIV dir=3D3Dltr>And what on Earth is c?</DIV> <DIV dir=3D3Dltr> </DIV> <DIV dir=3D3Dltr>Therefore I think we should keep all 26 letters (at = =3D least).</DIV> <DIV dir=3D3Dltr> </DIV> <DIV dir=3D3Dltr>* Apart from Classical Latin and any version of Gree= k, =3D languages=3D20 like Finnish lack that sound or anything similar. There are also Chin= ese =3D "dialects" without such a sound, so we're talking about tens or hundr= eds =3D of=3D20 millions of people who have never said "sh" in their lives.</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=3D3Dltr=3D20 style=3D3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; = =3D BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV>Unfortunately any syntactic rules governing pronunciation will= =3D inevitably=3D20 require the Phylocodisation of the natural names of botanists and = =3D places when=3D20 these form the basis of new botanic names</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV dir=3D3Dltr>This would probably enrage lots of botanists, zoolog= ists, =3D mycologists, protistologists, microbiologists, and who knows whom els= e. =3D At this=3D20 stage of the development of the PhyloCode we should really try not to= =3D make any=3D20 more enemies than we already have.</DIV></BODY></HTML> --Boundary_(ID_t9E7wBrSw6iVAvs0FoEVew)--