[Taxacom] pronunciation of Latin, concluding remarks

[Pekka T. Lehtinen]

	A thread beginning from the question about correct pronunciation of the 
group name Asterales has led to a long discussion about pronunciation of 
both names not regulated by a Code as well as later also about 
scientific names regulated by Codes of every group.  First of all Reg 
Handford, who opened this thread actually stated that he has got a 
satisfactory answer to his question.  As I am personally very much 
interested to get also well grounded discussions of this kind of 
widespread problems in international forums, for profit of high class 
oral communication, especially in all types of congresses and symposia, 
understandable for as many of their participants as possible. This form 
of communication is certainly important, too, not only the written text 
in our scientific publications. I still want to make some concluding 
remarks as a retired Commissioner of ICZN and, at the same time, 
representing a non-anglophone experienced specialist of taxonomy and 
nomenclature.	First of all, I would like to inform everybody again that 
a carefully formulated opinion of an American specialist of Latin 
language, Dr. Michael Covington is available in 
http://www.ai.uga.edu/mc/latinpro.pdf.  As everyone can become 
acquainted with his text, a thorough presentation of his opinions as 
such is not necessary here.  Anyway, as interpretations of his text 
deviating from those of mine have been presented in off-line 
discussions, I want to make some comments here to some details of 
Covington´s conclusions.
1. The Codes are MAINLY created for regulation of written text, but as 
SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF ORGANISMS are by definition either Latin words or 
Latinized words of variable origin, which must be treated according to 
the Latin grammar, it is obvious that this definition provides also that 
their pronunciation agrees with Latin pronunciation  and not with the 
pronunciation of any local language. Here it is essential to note that 
although we NOW MORE OR LESS GENERALLY AGREE that English is the 
dominant and preferable language of taxonomic descriptions and other 
text in taxonomic  publications, NO RULES DERIVED FROM THE PRONUNCIATION 
OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE CAN BE APPLIED TO  THE SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF 
ORGANISMS.	
2.  Covington recommends that among his four alternatives of LATIN 
PRONUNCIATION the so-called “Northern Continental” should be used for 
"unfamiliar scientific terms", which absolutely cannot be interpreted to 
mean the exclusion of SCIENTIFIC NAMES, as he even stresses the 
inclusion of Linnaeus, the creator of the concept of binominal 
scientific names,  among his list of "pioneers of science" ? For most 
people outside the specialists of a few BIOLOGICAL DISCIPLINES 
(taxonomy, nomenclature, genetics, molecular analysis) everything 
connected to the SCIENTIFIC NAMES of organisms are extremely UNFAMILIAR 
and sometimes it is even difficult to get permission for inclusion of 
scientific names (in parentheses, at least) in addition to local 
vernacular names IN ARTICLES PUBLISHED FOR PURPOSES OF SOME OTHER 
DISCIPLINES IN BIOLOGY (e.g., environmental science or nature 
conservancy). 
 
                            The value of a recommendation of a 
specialist of linguistics is GENERALLY EVEN MORE ESSENTIAL than the 
value of recommendations ADDED TO STRICT RULES (as in ICZN).  The four 
alternative pronunciations listed by Covington  are not "co-equal" as he 
clearly indicated the WIDE DIFFERENCES of usage for his four different 
alternatives.
3. I could easily deduct from Covington´s text that his "ENGLISH 
PRONUNCIATION" (of Latin!) would be more or less completely RESTRICTED 
TO "HISTORICAL  AND MYTHOLOGICAL NAMES", but not the pronunciation of 
Latin names WITHIN A CERTAIN PERIOD OF HISTORY ! The classical 
pronunciation seems to be reserved to OLD TEXTS OF THE CLASSICAL PERIOD 
and are therefore not at all suitable for scientific names.
4. The DIFFERENCES OF “ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION” and the “NORTHERN 
CONTINENTAL” ONE are not restricted to some VOWELS and the consonant "c" 
in different positions in regard to next vowels. For me the reality is 
far from that.  In all widespread languages of Europe and America 
(English, French, and Spanish) the pronunciation of quite many 
CONSONANTS and combinations of consonants, too, is widely different in 
different words and because of that also between the pronunciation of 
these languages and Latin. As the most elucidating instance I want to 
mention the names of persons, according to whom a lot of scientific 
names have been dedicated. 
 
                                             When I began my career as a 
taxonomist, one of the first difficult and amazing things was TO LEARN 
that "when a personal name is LATINIZED as a part of a scientific name, 
its pronunciation will be CHANGED from the original language to the 
pronunciation of Latin, INDEPENDENT IN THE ORIGIN OR DERIVATION OF THE 
NAME" Sometimes this change is phonetically insignificant, but often 
quite radical, especially in regard to names which are dedications to 
French personal names. According to ICZN there are no EXCEPTIONS FOR 
LATINIZED NAMES. They are just Latin and nothing referring to the 
original language of the name. In applying this RULE to pronunciation of 
these names we often get really FUNNY results, but when the CODE will be 
followed, e.g., the specific name lavoisieri must be pronounced as a 
LATINIZED word, which is, as a combination of each of its single letters 
resulting to a string which has no more meaning in its original 
language, and actually sounds to a Frenchman ENTIRELY DIFFERENT from 
that of a (non-latinized) name derived from the French surname Lavoisier 
by adding -i. I don´t even try to use here the ENGLISH “LETTER BY 
LETTER” SPELLING, as it is EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO NON-ANGLOPHONE PEOPLE 
and I don´t even know whether EXACTLY SAME PHONETIC  SYMBOLS ARE USED IN 
USA, UK and Australia OR NOT.
5. Michael Covington DISTINCTLY TELLS WHICH TYPE OF PRONUNCIATION should 
be selected in different contexts TO REACH THE BEST POSSIBLE 
UNDERSTANDING in optimal communication between large amount s of people 
WITH SIMILAR INTERESTS.  For me (and hopefully also for many other 
taxonomists) this is the AIM OF COMMUNICATION IN SCIENCE, including also 
the oral one.  In discussions within the staff and students of AN 
AMERICAN DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGY the best possible understanding may be 
(ALSO/STILL NOW) achieved in a slightly different way than in AN 
INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS with hundreds of participants from all parts of 
the world. In the case that SOME OF YOUR AMERICAN COLLEAGUES regard it 
useful to maintain two different practices in pronunciation of Latin FOR 
DIFFERENT AUDIENCES, it is acceptable, but then it should also be 
UNDERSTOOD AND ACCEPTED that the alternative ADOPTED AND PREFERRED BY ME 
(AND MANY OF MY NON-ANGLOPHONE COLLEAGUES) is more practical, as then it 
will be necessary to learn ONLY ONE, “Code-Compliant”  PRONUNCIATION OF 
LATIN. If this principle could be taught in basic biological courses of 
universities of ALL COUNTRIES,   after some time EVERYONE ON THIS PLANET 
USING SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF ORGANISMS in oral communication would need to 
know only one pronunciation of Latin!!
6. When I mentioned that there are "linguistic problems which cannot be 
understood by some people in English speaking countries" I really meant 
a problem that is not, according to my discussions with people from many 
countries" sufficiently included in the TEACHING OF THE ENGLISH 
LANGUAGE. I don´t know whether it is DUE TO DIFFERENT PRACTICES IN 
DIFFERENT COUNTRIES OR FOR SOME OTHER REASON which has remained obscure 
to me. Here I really mean the phonetic symbols for different letters in 
"LETTER BY LETTER SPELLING". At least for me, this sector of KNOWLEDGE 
IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE is absolutely outside all practical possibilities 
AND I KNOW THAT EACH LANGUAGE SEEMS TO HAVE ITS OWN STANDARDS. If you 
will try to expect spelling of LATIN WORDS "letter by letter" and your 
discussant is not an anglophone, you will certainly get a widespread 
problem "WHICH CANNOT BE UNDERSTOOD", especially if you are waiting THE 
USUAL LETTER BY LETTER spelling or something else that deviates from the 
UNIQUE CHARACTER  of Latin within many widespread languages: every 
letter has a single PHONETIC counterpart and it has nothing to do with 
the ENGLISH (probably neither with French nor Spanish – I have no idea) 
LETTER BY LETTER spelling.  As it is ABSOLUTELY not possible to provide 
that most taxonomists could KNOW THE FINNISH LETTERS (and I would never 
suggest it), it is not too far to TAKE THE GERMAN LETTERS as a "CLOSE 
BY"- alternative, although even then the uniqueness of the pronunciation 
of every letter is not as absolute in German as it is in Finnish.  Some 
of my colleagues may conclude now that MY MOTHER LANGUAGE belongs to the 
"underdeveloped" or in some way at least quite PRIMITIVE languages. I 
don´t care about such possible classifications, but this matter of fact 
may partly EXPLAIN TO THE TAXACOMERS, why I am a person, who can WITH 
GOOD REASONS strive towards an optimal  solution in international oral 
communication  by USING STANDARDIZED PRONUNCIATION  OF THE SCIENTIFIC 
NAMES OF ORGANISMS, not recommended by users of any single modern 
language, but by a specialist of Latin pronunciation.              Pekka 
T. Lehtinen <pekleh at utu.fi>