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

Re: Sauropodz r kewl WAS: silly conversation on 2012 US presidential race



I'm not exactly fond of 'multiculturalism', but international communication is 
pretty important. I would disagree that Chinese is a good language. The words 
are too short, and as a tonal language, the lack of variety can be difficult to 
get around. I prefer Latin/Greek due to Latin's place as traditional language 
of science. But as I said before, Chinese is heavily localized and difficlut to 
translate (I think). English spelling is also a reason not to use that 
language. I would definately NOT use Arabic very much, though: any word in that 
language can be spelled in a profusion of ways. I think it's ok to use Chinese 
names, but only in CHINA. Latin and Greek easier because the Roman Empire and 
Alexander's were large and well-known. And most other prehistoric animals get 
Latin/Greek names no matter where they are found. I also would advise against 
making a genus name and species name 'go together', in case new species are 
found. 

Thomas Yazbeck

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Schenck" <schenck.rob@gmail.com>
To: tyazbeck@comcast.net
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 3:13:12 PM
Subject: Re: Sauropodz r kewl WAS: silly conversation on 2012 US presidential 
race

On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 1:14 PM,  <tyazbeck@comcast.net> wrote:
> But the reason we use "abhorrent" Indo-European languages is because they are 
> familiar worldwide,
> and also because Latin and Classical Greek are DEAD tongues.

So is Sanskrit, but it could make for some 'cool' names.

> Chinese and other languages are OK in moderation, but they are

I'd disagree here. In fact I recall having heard that Chinese was
/nearly/ considered an 'honourary' Classical language for systematic
purposes, the idea being that in order to prevent things like
'totallyawesomeosaurus' nomenclature should be restricted to classical
languages (and name/place derivatives), and that for this purpose
classical languages were latin, greek, mandarin, and hindi.

Anyway, not saying that 'classic' usage is a great idea, just that,
there's really nothing wrong with using chinese. "Long" has ended up
being a pretty cool suffix, for example.

>simply not "global" enough. Remember that Latin gave rise to French and 
>Spanish, which are very widespread.

Well look if we want a global language then we have it, it's English.
Between colonialism and capitalism it's the /lingua franca/ (or should
that be 'common tongue' now eh?) of the modern world, and it's use
appears to only be growing (including as the internet and social media
grow). I recently heard that more people speak English as a second
language than as a first language too, which (sorta) removes some of
the 'it's biased and euro-yankee-centric' critique.



snip
-- 
Robert J. Schenck
Kingsborough Community College
Physical Sciences Department
S332 ph# 718-368-5792
Follow Me on Twitter: @Schenck
KCC Class Schedule on Google Calendar: http://tinyurl.com/mqwlcy