Message 2005-12-0005: Fw: Minor rewordings of Article 17?

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 23:46:43 +0200

[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>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV dir=3D3Dltr>On the other hand, there&nbsp;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>&nbsp;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>&nbsp;</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>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV dir=3D3Dltr>And what on Earth is c?</DIV>
<DIV dir=3D3Dltr>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV dir=3D3Dltr>Therefore I think we should keep all 26 letters (at =
=3D
least).</DIV>
<DIV dir=3D3Dltr>&nbsp;</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)--

  

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