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

Re: are these names now technically "taken" for dinos?

To: dinosaur@usc.edu
Subject: Re: are these names now technically "taken" for dinos?
From: Dann Pigdon <dannj@alphalink.com.au>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:14:31 +1100
Authentication-results: msg-ironport0.usc.edu; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
In-reply-to: <458614.31898.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <458614.31898.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Reply-to: dannj@alphalink.com.au
Sender: owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu

On Mon, Oct 26th, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Tim Williams <tijawi@yahoo.com> wrote:

> It's really only a quirk of history that 'Caesar' later came to be used as a 
> title for a supreme
> leader or emperor (Kaiser, Tsar, etc).  It probably has something to do with 
> the fact that
> peoples outside the Roman and Byzantine empires tended to refer to the rulers 
> of these empires 
as
> 'Caesar'. 

A similar thing happened with the word 'pharaoh'. It literally means 'great 
house', and refers to the 
king's palace rather than the king himself. 

-- 
_____________________________________________________________

Dann Pigdon
GIS / Archaeologist                Australian Dinosaurs
Melbourne, Australia               http://home.alphalink.com.au/~dannj
_____________________________________________________________

References:
- Re: are these names now technically "taken" for dinos?
  - From: Tim Williams <tijawi@yahoo.com>

Prev by Date: Re: are these names now technically "taken" for dinos?
Next by Date: "New" Wilson et al paper on Jainosaurus
Previous by thread: Re: are these names now technically "taken" for dinos?
Next by thread: Re: are these names now technically "taken" for dinos?
Indexes: