language

[Bill Shear]

A problem with Chinese is that it is an ideographic, not alphabetic,
script.  Thus even a native reader may be unable to find the meaning of
words that, perforce, are coined terms for which ideograms of perhaps
inapposite meaning have been appropriated.

If everyone uses Latin (or any other one language) then meanings can be
passed along with a minimum of ambiguity.  A second level comes when using
an alphabetic language with Latin influences (most modern European
languages)--words can be "figured out" on an etymological basis.  Still
another level is ANY alphabetic language, which still leaves a possibility
for some transmission of meaning.

But the gap between ideographic and alphabetic languages is hard to bridge.
I would agree that while written Chinese is perhaps used by more people
than any other written language, the question is not one of general use but
of use by taxonomists.  The vast majority of taxonomists use a European
alphabetic language.

I would therefore favor an ICZN rule returning to mandating use of an(y)
alphabetic language in at least the diagnostic "official" parts of
descriptions of taxa.
In the older Japanese literature, species names are often printed out in
the Roman alphabet and a brief German or English diagnosis is given (this
is for animals).  Why cannot our Chinese friends do the same and thus make
their work accessible worldwide?  It seems foolish to continue writing only
in Chinese if few people outside China can use the work; what is being
accomplished?  Perhaps a point is being made about national or ethnic
pride, but at what cost?


Bill Shear
Department of Biology
Hampden-Sydney College
Hampden-Sydney VA 23943
(804)223-6172
FAX (804)223-6374
email<wshear at email.hsc.edu>
Moderating e-lists:
Coleus at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coleus
Opiliones at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/opiliones
Myriapod at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/myriapod

This month's quote: "Yours is the jaded logic of Naderism: if it ain't
fixed, break it." --Thomas Talbot