[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
re: "Megapnosaurus" says farewell...
In a message dated Sun, 3 Feb 2002 6:56:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, Michael
Ivie <email@example.com> writes:
> We actually considered that name (Megaloapnoosaurus), but in its latinized
> form it is not euphonious and would add 2 unneeded and unwelcome
The -o- of _megalo-_ drops out before the a- of _apnoos_, so it shouldn't be
The second -o- in the "apnoosaurus" part *is* needed: the root itself contains
an -o-, and a second -o- is needed as a connector. The alternative is to
contract the two o's, yielding "megalapnousaurus", where the -ou- is
phonetically a long [u].
> dropped the double combining
> vowel because of the change in syllabification it would engender in
> Americanized Pseudolatin pronunciation, i.e. for euphony in the Latinized
> Although it would properly be ap-new-saur-us,
Only if it were spelled "apnousaurus".
> which is kind of nice, we
> know it would come out ap-no-oh-saur-us
This is the correct pronunciation if it is spelled with two o's in a row. I
don't mind it.