[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Law Abiding New Papers
Nick Pharris a écrit :
Quoting Jocelyn Falconnet <email@example.com>:
2009/10/23 David Marjanovic <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
According to Knoll, the species name_dangershoeki_ should have been
_dangershoekensis_, and a whole paragraph is devoted to this issue.
I agree, but it would seem to be entirely academic.
I don't even agree. There's just no reason not to form the genitive of a
place name. Sure, the adjective ending -ensis would have made it unambiguous
that Dangershoek is a place name, and could therefore be seen as preferable,
but that's all.
That's not the matter. There is no gender in Afrikaans, so there is NO
reason to choose the masculine ending ("-i"). The objection of Knoll
is justified: in order to respect the original genderless character of
Dangershoek, Butler should have chosen a more "neutral" suffix. The
ending "-ensis"/"-ense" are still problematic, though (the former for
masculine or feminine/the latter for neuter)
Why is -ensis/-e problematic? The -is vs. -e depends on the gender of the
*genus name* (I'm looking at you, *Aerosteon*), not the gender of the noun to
which -ensis/-e is attached. *Stormbergia* is, I think, unambiguously
feminine, so the ending would unambiguously be -ensis.
Huh... probably too tired when I replied to this one. Mea culpa, David, Nick for the
"-ensis"-gate (there is currently an Angola-gate, in France, ). There would be no problem
with the gender of Dangershoek if it was added the suffix "-ensis/-ense". In this case,
the choice depends only on the gender of the genus name. And not on that of Dangershoek as *cough*
I *cough* said previously.
I recognise it is most likely that Butler erected *Stormbergia* as a feminine
genus name, but he should have say it. Just to avoid such discussions such as
this one in DML and that in the paper of Knoll. Actually, I don't understand
why the indication of the gender of a new genus is only a recommandation, and
not a compulsory act in order to clarify everything, including the genus names
created from an arbitrary combination of letters. But some may think I am too
Actually, it doesn't matter that Afrikaans doesn't have gender. The name is being ported over into
Latin, and every Latin noun, regardless of its origin, has to have a gender. Probably the most
graceful way of doing it would be to Latinize the place name with -ia, then use the genitive of
that, making "dangershoekiae". But "dangershoeki" isn't so terrible.
Could be far worse, indeed. When I said "there is no reason [for Butler] to choose the
masculine ending", I meant "rather than some other gender or the locative suffix
ensis/ense". But nobody will empeach to do so as this procedure is in agreement with the Code.
I still think it is prefereable to indicate which gender is chosen even if it is unambiguous, with
a brief justification or at least say the choice is arbitrary.