[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Jordan Mallon wrote:
>>Bambiraptor is certainly more memorable than Micropachycephalosaurus. Why?
Because it is shorter, easier to pronounce, and can be identified with<<
It's a mistake, I think, to equate "short" with "easy-to-remember." For
instance, names like _Hypsibema_, _Othnielia_, _Tarchia_, _Polyonax_ are all
shorter than "Bambiraptor," but I would think they're actually *harder* to
As for pronunciation, I can't see how "Bambiraptor" is any more difficult
than _Micropachycephalosaurus_. In both, it's simply a matter of breaking the
names down into their constiuent syllables and pronouncing them phonetically
(the hard-K "ch" in _Micropachycephalosaurus_ *might* throw someone, I'll
admit). Length is fairly irrelevant to ease of pronunciation. There are
occassionally names where you do need to know a few bits of Latin or Greek,
names that incorporate "coel" or "ch" or so forth, but the phonics thing
almost always works.
Finally, the issue of identifying with a name is a non-issue. It's nice when
a name has certain resonances, as _Brontosaurus_ did, as _Tyrannosaurus_ and
_Carnotaurus_ do, names that summon particular images once you've grasped
their etymology, but, as I said in an earlier post, I think that trying to
fashion a name that will be "popular" with the public because it rings
certain bells is a clear case of reversed priorities.
Caitlin R. Kiernan