Latin

[Jong, R. de]

How do you know you can keep up with the literature by reading papers =
in
English, if you only read papers in English? Willi Hennig published a =
most
influential book in 1951 entitled 'Grundz=FCge einer phylogenetischen
Systematik'. It was widely and fiercely discussed in Germany and some =
other
European countries where people were able to understand German. But it =
only
became widely known in the English speaking world in 1966, when an =
American
edition of this work ('Phylogenetic systematics') appeared. Much of the
discussion was done all over again. Is this what you call 'keeping up =
with
the literature'?

This has little to do with botanical nomenclature. Being an =
entomologist I
don't understand what the botanists are worrying about. But having the
privilege of being a citizen of a country with a language that is =
understood
by at most 30 million people worldwide, I know how important it is to
understand several other languages than one's native tongue to keep up =
with
what is going on in the world.

Rienk de Jong

> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van:  Mark Garland [SMTP:MAGarland at AOL.COM]
> Verzonden:    zondag 28 februari 1999 16:15
> Aan:  Multiple recipients of list TAXACOM
> Onderwerp:    Re: Latin
>=20
> > (1)  Is not English the lingua franca of
> >  science now, as Latin was 250 years
> >  ago?
> >
> >  Answer me this: If English is as universally
> >  accepted as you claim, why is it then that my
> >  doctoral dissertation contained references to articles
> >  or books in seven languages other than English?
>=20
> How many of those articles or books were in Latin?  Any recent ones?
>=20
> An observation:  In the 1980's, the biology department at Florida =
State U.
> eliminated the foreign-language requirement for graduate students.  =
Short-
> sighted?  Maybe.  But the fact is that in most fields of biology, you =
can
> keep
> up with the literature very nicely by reading papers in English.
>=20
> >     English has been the #1 language for a few decades,
> >  but this will not last.
>=20
> OK, I agree.  Latin was also #1 for a few centuries in Western =
Europe, but
> it
> didn't last.  So why should we be writing botanical descriptions in =
it?
> When
> English is not generally used, I won't be arguing that we should =
still be
> writing botanical descriptions in it.
>=20
> >  By the year 2050, the
> >  idea of publishing in English a description of a plant
> >  native to Guatemala or Chad or Manchuria will seem
> >  rather quaint.
>=20
> And the idea of publishing a description in Latin will seem even =
*more*
> quaint.