[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
In a message dated 95-10-23 23:13:32 EDT, email@example.com (David
Brez Carlisle) writes:
> It is irrelevant that Rachel is feminine, the adjective of the
>the trivial name must agree with the noun of the generic name
>to make a valid specific name.
No, not correct in this instance. The gender of the trivial names _rachelae_
and _clarkae_, which are nouns in the genitive case and not adjectives, must
be the same as the *gender of the person being honored* (not her family, nor
her male ancestors, etc.). If you were honoring Rachel's father or brother,
then you would use _clarki_ instead of _clarkae_. If the trivial name is a
genitive noun, its gender depends on the person being honored, not on the
gender of the generic name.
And if you wanted to honor Rachel's father and mother together (a group
including at least one male), you would use _clarkorum_; and if you wanted to
honor Rachel and her mother (both women, no males), you would use
See ICZN 1985 edition Article 31(a)(ii): Species-group names formed from
personal names, etc.
Perhaps the most interesting way to form an honorific from the name Clark
would be to render it into Latin as _scriba_ (meaning "clerk," the word from
which the surname derives). Then you could have _Racheloraptor scribae_
(using the genitive of _scriba_--a masculine noun of the first declension).