Re: Law Abiding New Papers

[Jocelyn Falconnet <j.falconnet@gmail.com>]

Nick Pharris a écrit :

> Quoting Jocelyn Falconnet <j.falconnet@gmail.com>:
>   
>   
> > 2009/10/23 David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>:
> >     
> > >       
> > > >  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 
blunt, so...

> 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.