[Taxacom] Asterales

Wed Mar 14 11:26:12 CDT 2012

*my apologies to those that received this twice, but I meant to send
it to the list

As possibly a final note, the recent discussions here are consistent
with a text written by Erasmus about Latin pronunciation, back in 1528
(De recta Latini Graecique Sermonis Pronunciatione).

This means that this debate has not greatly advanced in quite a long
time. People tend to enjoy it when someone pronounces Latin in their
own way, and do not enjoy hearing any different method of
pronunciation.

Interestingly, linguists are very confident that they know how Latin
was pronounced in Classical times, and are confident in knowing
exactly how and when it has changed to the variant forms that we see
today. It might be interesting to recall that some "learned" classical
languages had a very specific form that was taught by leading cultural
centers. Any parochial method was considered to be a sign of poor
learning, at best. This was a very serious issue to them, and was
addressed much more strictly and thoroughly than the method employed
by most of today's cultures. Some classical languages had very strict
and difficult, "learned" forms and other, loosely governed vernacular
forms. There is almost certainly a deep cultural disconnect between
those who want standardized rules and those who do not care.

This is not to recommend Classical Latin today, because it would be
accepted by almost nobody. However, it might explain why Latin
pronunciation is still problematic.

Roger

On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Torbjörn Tyler
<torbjorn.tyler at botmus.lu.se> wrote:
> Basically, what Clark say is that these scientific names have for centuries been part of the English language and there is no reason to pronounce them any differently from genuine English words. Only an Anglophone can tell if that statement is correct or not, so I will not argue against it, and I will definitely not debate how English words should be pronounced in an English context.
>
> However, that implies that these scientific names are no longer to be considered as Latin (as stated in both Codes although there are no explicit rules for pronunciation) but as made up from English words. From this follows that these scientific names are no longer considered as means of facilitating communication with the non-English speaking world. If the latter is not the reason why we use these standardized "scientific" names, I cannot see why we should continue to do so.
>
> When communicating with Swedish-speaking people, I very rarely use anything but vernacular Swedish names for organisms (virtually all multicellular organisms found in Sweden have such) since they are much more easy for us to pronounce and remember (and generally shorter which makes them much more usefull in e.g. databases and personal note-books). However, when I occasionally speak with Danes, Norwegians, Icelanders, Germans (or Englishmen/Americans), i.e. with people whose own language I generally understand, I am very pleased if they use the Latin/scientific organismal names rather than their own vernacular ones (of which I know only a few). This holds of course, provided that they pronounce them in a way that I can comprehend and I am able to pronounce them in a way they understand... However, I assume that this argument does not work on Americans who are rarely forced to speak anything but their own language.
>
> I think the argument put fourth here concerning the DJ on some American radio channel trying to pronounce the names of composers as they would have done themselves speaks for itself. Actually, if someone on the Swedish radio ever tried to pronounce the name of some American/English artist or composer according to the rules of the Swedish language he/she would be overwhelmed by protests and probably fired, and, even if the number of protestants would be slightly lower, the same would happen with any personal or geographic name of a non-Swedish origin. Obviously, however, Americans look a bit differently on these matters...
>
> Interestingly, It appears as if some Anglophones actually have noticed that scientific names, if pronounced in very different traditions, maybe difficult to comprehend, but they do still not take that as an argument for trying to standardize that pronunciation...
>
> Another point; please note that I have actually not written anything on this thread stating that I argue that one particular pronunciation of Latin/scientific names is to be preferred (but some others have). All I have called for is that we should strive towards a common practice and common rules. Since I admit that Botanical/Zoological Latin is a living language (derived from the Latin used in Europe during the Middle Ages), I do not argue that these rules nesesserily have to be exactly the same as those followed by Cato and Caesar. (But, honestly, I do believe that adopting the rules used for pronouncing English – which are far more complicated and with far more exceptions than the classical Latin rules – would be a bit off.)
>
> Yours,
> Torbjörn
>
>
>
> 14 mar 2012 kl. 15.55 skrev Curtis Clark:
>
>> On 3/14/2012 1:31 AM, Torbjörn Tyler wrote:
>>> If everybody pronounces scientific names according to the rules of their own mother language we will certainly face huge problems in our spoken communication, so I think we should care! I have actually already once experienced a situation where my students asked an invited American guest lecturer to write all scientific names used in the lecture on the whiteboard since they could not translitterate them from his pronounciation.
>>
>> I routinely taught my graduate students how to pronounce Latin in the
>> European style. On the basis of this discussion, I will teach
>> undergraduates in my plant taxonomy course. That will give them all a
>> one-up against Europeans who only understand their local pronunciation
>> (sadly, I can't make my students fluent in multiple languages, something
>> which is much more common in Europe).
>>
>>> As stated in a previous mail, though admittedly with some irony then, I cannot see the point in using scientific names (as opposed to vernacular ones) if we are not trying to pronounce them in a way that facilitates understanding by people with other vernacular mother languages.
>>
>> But this is true of all spoken communication. If I re-frame it, you are
>> arguing that anyone learning English should learn to pronounce it
>> correctly, with the exception of scientific names, because the
>> centuries-long traditional pronunciation of Latin by Anglophones is a
>> spurious aberration.
>>
>> When I speak German or Spanish, I pronounce (to the best of my ability)
>> scientific names in the way accepted by each of those languages, which
>> differ slightly from each other and from ecclesiastical and classical
>> Latin.
>>
>>> Most people find vernacular (i.e. English or Swedish) organismal names easier to learn and comprehend than their scientific/Latin counterparts, so if the latter no longer facilitates communication across language boundaries I will in most cases prefer the former.
>>
>> This is a common  argument by Anglophones as well, and is the basis for
>> creating "common" English names where there were none before. But any
>> nine-year-old boy can pronounce Tyrannosaurus and Velociraptor (although
>> likely getting the stress accent wrong on the latter).
>>
>>> Thus, even if it may be true that Botanical Latin should be considered as a living language separate from classical Latin, I think we should strive to agree on at least some basic rules for its pronounciation.
>>
>> Basic rules for its pronunciation in English have existed for centuries.
>> They deviate from rules for pronouncing it in other European languages,
>> just as the rest of the pronunciation rules of English differ.
>>
>>> That will not pose any serious problems, but only as long as we have the ambition and willingness to adopt a pronunciation that facilitates our communication, and from the previous discussion on this thread I get the impression that some colleagues do not have such an ambition.
>>
>> Reframing again: "We should all strive to pronounce Latin the way we
>> Europeans do, even though it flies in the face of a long-standing
>> tradition of English pronunciation, and thus will cause miscommunication
>> among English-speakers, who don't really matter, since they should learn
>> our pronunciation anyway."
>>
>> (BTW, I'm not happy about the new ability to describe plant species in
>> English, since botanical Latin is a far more precise language. And when
>> I read Latin descriptions aloud, I use a northern European pronunciation.)
>>
>> This is the last I have to say on the subject (except that if I prepare
>> a guide on the web for my students, I may post a URL):
>>
>> 1. There has been a consistent English pronunciation of Latin for
>> centuries.
>> 2. Virtually all Anglophone biologists whom I have heard speak use that
>> traditional English pronunciation.
>> 3. All biologists should strive to communicate to the best of their
>> abilities, even when this means leaving their comfort zones in terms of
>> languages and pronunciations not their own. This includes understanding
>> and pronouncing scientific names according to several traditions.
>>
>> --
>> Curtis Clark        http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark
>> Biological Sciences                   +1 909 869 4140
>> Cal Poly Pomona, Pomona CA 91768
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> Taxacom Mailing List
>> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>>
>> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:
>>
>> (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
>>
>> (2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Torbjörn Tyler, Ph.D,
>>
>> – Curator at herbarium LD.
>> – Editor in Chief of Nordic Journal of Botany.
>> – Deputy secretary of Lund Botanical Society, with special
>> responsibility for Projekt Skånes Mossor.
>> – Responsible for the project The Hieracia of Sweden.
>>
>>
>> Botanical Museum
>> Ö. Vallgatan 18
>> SE-223 61 Lund
>>
>> tel. +(0)46-222 89 65
>>
>>
>> e-mail: torbjorn.tyler at botmus.lu.se<mailto:torbjorn.tyler at botmus.lu.se>
>>
>> Private address: Enningervägen 12, SE-243 31 Höör (=Hoeoer), tel.
>> +(0)413-23123.
>> ___________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:
>
> (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> (2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here