[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: To Fred Bervoets
? ?Dear Hono(u)red Persons,
Although this is the 21st century by common reckoning, there is no call to
grammatical usage of ancient languages, now "dead" by many generations.
While current idiomatic
English (and Modern Persian/Farsi, among other kindred Indo-European
languages) lightly discards
gender and even number agreement, classical Latin and ancient Greek allowed
no such liberties.
Their respective powers of expression through case and gender suffixes made
relationships unambiguous. It behooves us to hono(u)r their conventions,
which, by the way, were
the very reasons they were the preferred modes of communication among
savants and clerics during
the Western Middle Ages and the subsequent Western Renaissance and Western
which we continue to operate.
On paper, it is a small matter, akin to nit-picking. Still, it hearkens back
to our cultural and scientific
roots and should be observed to the best of our abilities. There is no shame
in anchoring our
nomenclature to the usages of Linnaeus (A.D. 1707-1778), Caesar (100-44
(ca. 372-ca. 287 B.C.), and Aristotle (384-322 B.C.).
The digital future may be alarmingly different, but we're not there yet.
-= Tuck =-
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2001 6:54 PM
Subject: Re: To Fred Bervoets
> In a message dated 8/10/01 3:44:55 PM EST, Mickey_Mortimer11@msn.com
> << Okay, now I'm confused. Back in February of 1997
> (http://www.cmnh.org/fun/dinosaur-archive/1997Feb/0514.html), you wrote A.
> lammersi and T. tilletti should be retained as the correct names because
> ICZN ruled that the emendation was unjustified. Has this changed? >>
> That was me buying into a position that I later discovered was incorrect.
> ICZN didn't rule on anything; Peter Dodson obtained a letter from the
> secretary, Philip Tubbs, that supported his side of the Avaceratops
> lammersorum argument, and I was snowed. But I subsequently realized that a
> mere letter from the ICZN secretary is not a ruling, so I reverted to my
> earlier position. The spellings used in MM #3 first printing will be the
> I'll use from now until the day the ICZN actually publishes an Opinion
> conserves the incorrect original spellings.