[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: *Dalianraptor cuhe* and *Sinornithosaurus haoianus* (short!)

Quoting "Jaime A. Headden" <qilongia@yahoo.com>:

David Marjanovic (david.marjanovic@gmx.at) wrote:

<No -- I just cite more.>

 David failed to cite Article 32.5, which argues why emendations are to be
made. Further emendation, unter Article 33, goes thus:

 "33.2. Emendations. Any demonstrably intentional change in the original
  spelling of a name other than a mandatory change is an "emendation", except
  as provided in Article 33.4.

Note _"other than a mandatory change"_, such as correcting the gender of an adjective.


 Note that the emendation is accepted when in accordance to 32.5 rules, the
two conditions I have mentioned that do not allow either David's or Nick's
argument (though I may be missing a nuance).

Yes, you are. The sections you cited appear to me to relate to the spelling of the root, not to the form of the ending.



<The ICZN doesn't care about that.>

The ICZN does care about prevailing usage. The example given for Article 33.2
considers an unjustified emendation that came into prevailing usage and is used
as the correct spelling, if not original, for that taxon:

"Example. Because *Helophorus*, an unjustified emendation by Illiger (1801)
of
*Elophorus* Fabricius, 1775, is in prevailing use in the Coleoptera and
attributed to Fabricius, it is deemed to be a justified emendation; the name
*Helophorus* Fabricius, 1775 is to be maintained as the correct spelling."

Right. Notice that the spelling error (or transcriptional difference) is in the root, not the ending.



 Then there is

"31.2.3. If a species-group name (or, in the case of a compound species-group
name, its final component word) is not a Latin or latinized word [Arts.
11.2,
26], it is to be treated as indeclinable for the purposes of this Article,
and need not agree in gender with the generic name with which it is combined
(the original spelling is to be retained, with ending unchanged; see Article
34.2.1)."

 If we argue that "haoiana" is not latinized, should We then ignore the
argument of declension?

Why would we want to argue that? What would -ian- be, if not the Latin adjectivalizing suffix?


 No, I am trying to get you to not take it seriously; as the exclamation
points in the replied-to post attest to need for. I am also playing Devil's
Advocate, though I feel I should have to TELL anyone this.

Well, sometimes it's not so easy to tell, especially over e-mail :-). I know there are people who will jump all over me for saying this, but I personally feel it's disrespectful to profess to use Latin in our nomenclature and then not be bothered to learn how to do it according to its own rules. Disrespectful to whom? To the original Latin speakers? To the language itself? I don't know. It's just a feeling.


Latin paired with Chinese?

Sure. No weirder than Latin paired with Gaulish, or with Punic, or with some precursor to Basque, which all seem to have happened in the Classical period.


Recall also my statement about "millenii". The
authors state only that the name refers to the Millennium; they do not state
the name derives from the Latin words for one thousand years,


Come on, Jaime.  That's pretty thin.

<That's not what the ICZN allows. To give an adjective the correct ending is
mandatory, but to replace the adjective by a noun is not allowed.>

The ICZN allows the authors to establish their original intent in correct
form. If -iana was an intent to form an adjective based on a feminine name, and
was done so incorrectly,

Again, *haoian-* is a perfectly well-formed Latin adjective. It just has to match the gender of its head noun.


then -ae may be the correct emendation, no?

No. Then you're not even talking about an adjective. As I understand it, the ICZN allows emendations to the ending (at least of an adjective), but not to the stem. Whatever the species name ends up being, *haoian-* has to be part of it.


 Nonetheless, my position is at this point in sum: 1) The name _haoiana_ does
not neccessarily require emendation as it is not neccessary to emend the name
if the authors themselves accept the name and do not revise it, or that the
intent in declination versus suffigeal form is unclear.

It has to be emended if the intended meaning is "Chinese bird lizard that pertains to Hao".

If you can convince me that the intended meaning is "Chinese bird lizard which is a female person pertaining to Hao" (i.e., that "haoiana" is actually a noun in apposition with "sinornithosaurus", rather than an adjective modifying it), then I'll yield.

--
Nick Pharris
Department of Linguistics
University of Michigan

"Creativity is the sudden cessation of stupidity."
    --Edwin H. Land