help educating employer

[Jacques Melot]

Cher Dr. Joseph E. Laferriere,

je pense que les reponses a toutes les questions que l'on peut se poser en
rapport avec les terminaisons -ii et -i se trouvent dans:

Dan H. Nicolson, Orthography of names and epithets: latinization of
personal names, Taxon 23(4), p. 549-561. 1974.

une etude tres complete et tres instructive dont j'insere, ci-dessous, des
extraits en reponse a votre texte:

>I am writing to the Taxacom discussion group mailing list
>to request assistance enlightening my current employer. Please
>do not ask who he is.
>   My boss's training is in zoology, butour current project
>is mainly botanical. I understand that most zoologists spell
>commemorative names with a single "i" added to the person's name.
>In botany, however, the rule is two "i's" unless the person's
>name ends in a vowel or "-er." (or if the honoree was a woman)
>   My boss, however, insists on spelling plant names with a
>single i. Thus Yucca schottii becomes Yucca schotti. I photocopied
>for him the portions of the ICBN explaining the rule in some
>detail. I even underlined the sentence which says that to
>violate this rule is "an error to be corrected." The boss's
>reply is below.
>   My problem is that I am not a Latin scholar. I can merely
>quote the rule, not explain it. I am hoping someone can help
>by answering a few questions:
>
>1) Is the double-i rule based on Classical Latin? How would
>Pliny the Elder have translated "Schott's Yucca?"

[D. H. Nicolson:]
<<The remarkable thing about Roman personal nomenclature [...] is that the
names of the various noble houses (gentes) are derivable directly from the
basis of given names by adding -i- before inflection (stem augmentation),
such as Juli-us from Jul-us, Tulli-us from Tull-us, [...]. These derived
names are properly adjectives, formed by adding -ius to the base of the
given name of the real or supposed original head of the house. [...]
The present provision of Recommendation 73C (b) (Stafleu et al., I972)
which recommends forming epithets (nouns in genitive) from the name of a
man by adding the letters -ii when the name ends in a consonant, is a
reflection of the ancient Roman tradition: a surname, like the name of a
Roman gens, is signalled by augmentation of the original stem plus the
appropriate Latin inflection. In a historical sense latinizing a person's
name with stem augmentation (adding -i before the inflection) honors the
person by according his name the same treatment originally accorded only to
surnames of patrician and noble Roman families. [...]
Surnames ending in vowels are not augmented for the practical reason of
avoiding creation of strings of vowels that the Romans never used.  [...]>>

>
>2) Is he correct in his assertion below that the trend in
>zoology has been in the opposite direction?

[D. H. Nicolson:]
<<[...] it should be noted that the International Code of Zoological
Nomenclature (Stoll et al., 1964) has recently modified its provisions
concerning latinization of personal names. Before the 16th Congress of
Zoology (1963), Article 31 said that species-group names, if nouns formed
from modern personal names, could only end in -i (not -ii), -ae (not -iae),
etc. This meant that past usage of the augmented stem, the extra -i- before
the inflection, had to be eliminated. Now Article 31 has been deleted, but
the same provisions are now in Recommendation 31A. This means that past
usage of the extra -i- is not to be corrected. Zoologists now must check
the original literature to determine the precise original spelling. This is
an unfortunate development, but a step in the right direction toward
historical latinization of vernacular personal names and the creation of
Roman surnames from Roman given names>>

>3) Can the case be made that zoologists are using faulty
>Latin by using a single i?

>Thank you very much for your time and assistance. Any help
>anyone can give would be vrey much appreciated.
>
>Joseph E. Laferriere, PhD
>JosephL at aztec.asu.edu
>
[...]

HISTORIQUE
La regle simplificatrice imposant -ii (au lieu de -i) a ete introduite dans
le Code de Paris (1954, publ. 1956, Art. 73 Note 3, p. 46) et apparait
d'abord sous la forme d'une Recommandation dans le Code de Cambridge
(1930).

La premiere tentative  pour transformer cette Recomm. en regle remonte
apparemment a Hylander (<<Synopsis of proposals [...] Stockholm 1950. A.
Oosthoek's Uitg. Mij., Utrecht>>, Prop. 1950-48, p.192-195; le commentaire
du Rapporteur (Lanjouw) fut defavorable et la proposition fut rejetee).

La regle actuelle (Code de Tokyo) est celle exprimee dans l'Art. 60.11:

60.11. The use of a termination (for exemple -i, -ii, [...]) contrary to
Rec. 60C.1 (but not 60C.2) is treated as an error to be corrected [....]

La restriction <<but not 60C.2>> signifie que si une epithete consiste en
un nom de personne grec ou latin ou possedant une forme latinisee bien
etablie, elle peut se terminer en -i si l'auteur de la publication a choisi
d'adopter cette terminaison lors de la publication valide du nom botanique
correspondant.

En botanique, donc, les deux terminaisons -ii et -i existent
irremediablement mais ne sont pas interchangeables.

Beaucoup de noms de personnes appartiennent a des systemes phonologiques
plus ou moins incompatibles avec celui du latin, ce qui mene a des
situations impossibles. L'Art. 60.11 permet de trancher mecaniquement. Tel
qu'il est formule il constitue sans doute un moindre mal. (Cf. l'etude de
D. H. Nicolson.)

On pourrait, a la rigueur, invoquer le Preambule 10, lequel autorise a
suivre un usage etabli plus moins contraire aux regles, si l'on a de
serieuses raisons de penser que <<les consequences des regles sont
douteuses>>.

J'espere que ces quelques remarques vous aideront,

Salutations distinguees,

Jacques Melot, Reykjavik
melot at itn.is