|
Worth noting that paleontology seems to have started using 'indigenous' (non-classical) name roots fairly late compared to neontology. Many genera of south-east Asian fishes, for example, are taken verbatim from local names; these genera were all described
in the 19th-early 20th century. Back then dinosaurs were mostly being discovered in Europe or North America and being given Latin-Greek names.
But I agree with Mickey that some modification should be made to foreign words in binomials. FWIW, the practice of translating terms from local languages to Latin/Greek is a good compromise with the classical purists and provides uniqueness when used judiciously.
T. Yazbeck
From: Mickey Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2020 9:18 PM To: Ethan Schoales <ethan.schoales@gmail.com>; Yazbeck, Thomas <yazbeckt@msu.edu> Cc: dinosaur-l@usc.edu <dinosaur-l@usc.edu> Subject: Re: [dinosaur] RETRACTION: Oculudentavis, new smallest known Mesozoic bird in amber from Cretaceous of Myanmar And... back from a trip. In response to Tim, I think there are benefits to using Latin and Greek to create scientific names, since exposure to Latin and Greek bases makes it easier to comprehend and spell many words in English and other
Romance languages. I also think rules are good when they inform us of facts about the etymology, like petersi versus petersorum. But when it comes to combining languages to make a name being bad, or the details as to how prefixes and suffixes combine in
Latin, I just don't value that. But you do, and that's fine.
In response to Jason, I think you hit the nail on the head by saying using these languages puts everyone in the same boat, but that boat is getting more rickety every generation. Only 2% of American students learn Latin for instance, which is probably why we have so many Place-saurus name-i taxa anymore that everyone complains about. Occasionally someone's creative and breaks the mold, like Giraffatitan, but then it just gets tens of copycats for related taxa. Ditto, -raptor, -pelta, -tyrannus, etc.. It would be interesting to see the percentage of Latin/Greek-based dinosaur names that are Place-saurus name-i throughout the years from the 1800s till today. Because of this apparent stagnation, I'm mostly* a fan of the current trend to use other languages just because it gives some variety. And sure I don't know how to pronounce them, but as Thomas replied, I'm pronouncing most Chinese dinosaur names incorrectly anyway. * I say I'm MOSTLY a fan, because I do wish that people would stop using unmodified foreign words for taxa because it makes electronic searches more difficult. Just add an -ia at the end or something, like Borogovia. Mickey Mortimer From: dinosaur-l-request@mymaillists.usc.edu <dinosaur-l-request@mymaillists.usc.edu> on behalf of Yazbeck, Thomas <yazbeckt@msu.edu> Sent: Monday, July 27, 2020 11:06 PM To: Ethan Schoales <ethan.schoales@gmail.com> Cc: dinosaur-l@usc.edu <dinosaur-l@usc.edu> Subject: Re: [dinosaur] RETRACTION: Oculudentavis, new smallest known Mesozoic bird in amber from Cretaceous of Myanmar Depends on the romanisation system, of which there is one typically used for Mandarin nowadays (Pinyin). *Caihong* apparently is pronounced something like 'tseye-hoong' (judging by a perusal of some wikipedia articles about Chinese). Since names for taxa apparently cannot use diacritics or other marks to indicate tone, you would have to consult the etymology to determine what the root words mean, because the same word/morpheme in Chinese has multiple separate meanings depending on tone. Just trying to explain it has me wondering if I am getting it right; for speakers of most Indo-European languages tone is confusing. Thomas Yazbeck From: Ethan Schoales <ethan.schoales@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2020 1:34 AM To: Yazbeck, Thomas <yazbeckt@msu.edu> Subject: Re: [dinosaur] RETRACTION: Oculudentavis, new smallest known Mesozoic bird in amber from Cretaceous of Myanmar Is Caihong pronounced Kaihong or Tsaihong? On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 1:32 AM Yazbeck, Thomas <yazbeckt@msu.edu> wrote: It's also worth noting that English and Latin share the same script. While Greek is pretty consistent in terms of transliteration into the Latin script, languages like Chinese and Arabic have many different romanizations. This can introduce extra pronunciation confusion for the uninitiated. Many world languages have phonemes unfamiliar to English speakers, too, and I bet many of us on this list are pronouncing our Chinese dinosaur names wrong. Thomas Yazbeck From: dinosaur-l-request@mymaillists.usc.edu <dinosaur-l-request@mymaillists.usc.edu> on behalf of Jura <pristichampsus@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2020 12:32 AM To: dinosaur-l@usc.edu <dinosaur-l@usc.edu>; Tim Williams <tijawi@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [dinosaur] RETRACTION: Oculudentavis, new smallest known Mesozoic bird in amber from Cretaceous of Myanmar I agree with Tim. The appeal of these dead languages is that they don't change and because no one speaks them anymore, it puts everyone in the same boat (okay, aside from some slight advantage of coming from a country with Indo-European roots). That means no weird grammar changes or pronunciation fiascos. Frankly, one of the larger annoyances with many new names these days is that they incorporate local languages in them such that it's impossible to know the pronunciation without hearing the authors pronounce it themselves. At least with Latin and ancient Greek, one had a fighting chance. Jason On Monday, July 27, 2020, 9:27:38 PM CDT, Tim Williams <tijawi@gmail.com> wrote: That's a cop-out. If you want to name a genus or species using Latin or ancient Greek, but can't be bothered constructing the name properly... then why use these 'dead' languages at all? We may not speak Latin or ancient Greek any more, but both are most often the go-to languages when we want to create a new name. Therefore, we should take the time to combine the words together correctly, rather than just 'cut-and-paste' them together. Not everyone can be expected to be across every detail of Latin or Greek grammar and vocabulary - I'm certainly not. So if in doubt, ask someone who is. Just email them. In my experience, people who are conversant in these ancient languages are only too happy to help. Such diligence might have spared us atrocities like _Notatesseraeraptor_. In general, I think "tradition" and "propriety" are important in nomenclature. Rather than being swept away by the arc of history, modern nomenclature can continue it. Genus and species names are a lot more than "just a label" stuck on a specimen for convenience. I think the naming of a new taxon should be more than just a perfunctory act, done simply to replace a specimen number. You are naming a creature that is entirely new to science, and the name will most likely outlive you. After all the time and effort that goes into describing a new taxon, I'm surprised at how little attention some people give to actually naming the thing. On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 9:14 PM Mickey Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com> wrote: > > There's no harm, but I also don't see a pragmatic point to doing so. From the perspective of a scientist, a name is just a label, so so you'd want something that aids in communication- unique, memorable, easy to write and say, etc.. But Latin hasn't been the language of the world or the language of science for decades and there's no reason to believe it will be again. The hard fact of the world is the vast majority of scientists don't learn Latin or Greek, have little reason to do so, and the current language of science is English. So why do you care if they follow archaic rules that are only of use to historians when creating a biological label? As someone so in thrall with the Shiny Digital Future, can't you see this is just 'tradition' and 'propriety' that is being swept away by the arc of history? > > Mickey Mortimer > > ________________________________ > From: dinosaur-l-request@mymaillists.usc.edu <dinosaur-l-request@mymaillists.usc.edu> on behalf of Tim Williams <tijawi@gmail.com> > Sent: Monday, July 27, 2020 3:36 AM > To: dinosaur-l@usc.edu <dinosaur-l@usc.edu> > Subject: Re: [dinosaur] RETRACTION: Oculudentavis, new smallest known Mesozoic bird in amber from Cretaceous of Myanmar > > Mike Taylor <sauropoda@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Mickey Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com> wrote: > > > While I couldn't care less about proper Latin or Greek formulation in names, > > It pains me to read that, Mickey. Personally, I wince whenever I see > a badly formed name - including _Oculudentavis_. Based on the > comments by other DML contributors, I'm heartened that I'm not the > only one who thinks this way. Where's the harm in authors trying just > a bit harder to get their names right? |