[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: *Triceratops horrida*



On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 8:46 AM, David Marjanovic
<david.marjanovic@gmx.at> wrote:
>> ÂYou are overlooking this bit from the ICZN:
>>
>> Â30.1.4.3. A compound genus-group name ending in -ops is to be treated
>> Âas masculine, regardless of its derivation or of its treatment by
>> Âits author.
>
> Ah, thanks. That solves the problem. :-)
>
>> ÂNow, *why* the ICZN specifies this I do not now.
>
> Maybe some popular 19th-century dictionary erroneously stated it was
> masculine, and then so many genus names ending in it had been treated as
> masculine that changing that would have been too much work? Of course I
> don't know how old "the esteemed Lidell & Scott" is itself.
>

Original edition 1843, the edition available at Perseus 1996.

Further poking in the later finds:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aalphabetic+letter%3D*w%3Aentry+group%3D10%3Aentry%3Dw%29%2Fy

This is "ops" with an omega instead of and omicron, means basically
the same thing, and can be either masc or fem.

Compounds in -ops seem mostly to have omicron ("Kyklops" has omega),
but they, as Tim says, seem to be all masculine.

(The feminines in -ope look like adjectives (whatever-faced) - one
might expect masc adjectives in -opos, but apparently that'd be too
systematical. Perhaps the masculine compounds in -ops were
nevertheless felt to be adjectival in significance and therefore given
natural gender?)

-- 
Andreas Johansson

Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?