Re: New issue of JVP 2001(2) (no JOKE)

["Demetrios M. Vital" <vita0015@umn.edu>]

On 13 Jul 2001, Jaime A. Headden wrote:

>   My point exactly. Look at it this way: I would not name an
> animal *Hitlersaurus* to honor or deride the man. I would choose
> a euphemism or phrase to characterize him: *Constructus* to
> honor the architect, or *Bellor* to honor the soldier, or
> *Tyrannus* to honor the dictator. In this way, the phrase
> "tyrant lizard" can be taken euphemistically to imply a reptile
> like Hitler, as much as the name "fire snatcher" was used to
> imply Prometheus, or an animal snatched from a fire, etc....

Except for the fact that the animal was named before Hitler mattered, and
before WWII.  Anachronistic euphemistical interpretation (why are we
interpreting -as opposed to translating- "Tyrannosaurus rex," again?) is
still anachronistic.

Oy vey!  When dino names have to be exegeted, then we know something's
wrong!

However, I do agree with HP Headden's (and others') point that grammatical
rules should be followed in nomenclature, in whatever language the animal
is named in originally.  This creates translation problems (i.e. dino names
in proper Latin grammer needing to be translated into, say proper Hebrew
grammer), of course, but throwing grammer out the window isn't a better
option.  languages have rules for a reason, and nomenclatorial "coolness"
or personal aesthetics shouldn't take precedence.

Etymologically yours,

Demetrios (masculine form of Greek name "Demeter," the goddess of the
Earth) Vital (Spanish etymology, related to "life" or "living," but I'm not
sure)

P.S.  There's something unsettling about connecting "Hitler" to my favorite
dinosaur...but there's that nasty opinion thing.