Re: [dinosaur] RETRACTION: Oculudentavis, new smallest known Mesozoic bird in amber from Cretaceous of Myanmar

[Mickey Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com>]

And... back from a trip.  In response to Tim, I think there are benefits to 
using Latin and Greek to create scientific names, since exposure to Latin and 
Greek bases makes it easier to comprehend and spell many words in English and 
other Romance languages.  I also think rules are good when they inform us of 
facts about the etymology, like petersi versus petersorum.  But when it comes 
to combining languages to make a name being bad, or the details as to how 
prefixes and suffixes combine in Latin, I just don't value that.  But you do, 
and that's fine.  

In response to Jason, I think you hit the nail on the head by saying using 
these languages puts everyone in the same boat, but that boat is getting more 
rickety every generation.  Only 2% of American students learn Latin for 
instance, which is probably why we have so many Place-saurus name-i taxa 
anymore that everyone complains about.  Occasionally someone's creative and 
breaks the mold, like Giraffatitan, but then it just gets tens of copycats for 
related taxa.  Ditto, -raptor, -pelta, -tyrannus, etc..  It would be 
interesting to see the percentage of Latin/Greek-based dinosaur names that are 
Place-saurus name-i throughout the years from the 1800s till today.  Because of 
this apparent stagnation, I'm mostly* a fan of the current trend to use other 
languages just because it gives some variety.  And sure I don't know how to 
pronounce them, but as Thomas replied, I'm pronouncing most Chinese dinosaur 
names incorrectly anyway.  

* I say I'm MOSTLY a fan, because I do wish that people would stop using 
unmodified foreign words for taxa because it makes electronic searches more 
difficult.  Just add an -ia at the end or something, like Borogovia.

Mickey Mortimer


From: dinosaur-l-request@mymaillists.usc.edu 
<dinosaur-l-request@mymaillists.usc.edu> on behalf of Yazbeck, Thomas 
<yazbeckt@msu.edu>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2020 11:06 PM
To: Ethan Schoales <ethan.schoales@gmail.com>
Cc: dinosaur-l@usc.edu <dinosaur-l@usc.edu>
Subject: Re: [dinosaur] RETRACTION: Oculudentavis, new smallest known Mesozoic 
bird in amber from Cretaceous of Myanmar 
 
Depends on the romanisation system, of which there is one typically used for 
Mandarin nowadays (Pinyin). *Caihong* apparently is pronounced something like 
'tseye-hoong' (judging by a perusal of some wikipedia articles about Chinese). 
Since names for taxa apparently cannot use diacritics or other marks to 
indicate tone, you would have to consult the etymology to determine what the 
root words mean, because the same word/morpheme in Chinese has multiple 
separate meanings depending on tone. Just trying to explain it has me wondering 
if I am getting it right; for speakers of most Indo-European languages tone is 
confusing.

Thomas Yazbeck



From: Ethan Schoales <ethan.schoales@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2020 1:34 AM
To: Yazbeck, Thomas <yazbeckt@msu.edu>
Subject: Re: [dinosaur] RETRACTION: Oculudentavis, new smallest known Mesozoic 
bird in amber from Cretaceous of Myanmar 
 
Is Caihong pronounced Kaihong or Tsaihong?

On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 1:32 AM Yazbeck, Thomas <yazbeckt@msu.edu> wrote:
It's also worth noting that English and Latin share the same script. While 
Greek is pretty consistent in terms of transliteration into the Latin script, 
languages like Chinese and Arabic have many different romanizations. This can 
introduce extra pronunciation confusion for the uninitiated. Many world 
languages have phonemes unfamiliar to English speakers, too, and I bet many of 
us on this list are pronouncing our Chinese dinosaur names wrong.

Thomas Yazbeck


From: dinosaur-l-request@mymaillists.usc.edu 
<dinosaur-l-request@mymaillists.usc.edu> on behalf of Jura 
<pristichampsus@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2020 12:32 AM
To: dinosaur-l@usc.edu <dinosaur-l@usc.edu>; Tim Williams <tijawi@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [dinosaur] RETRACTION: Oculudentavis, new smallest known Mesozoic 
bird in amber from Cretaceous of Myanmar 
 
I agree with Tim. The appeal of these dead languages is that they don't change 
and because no one speaks them anymore, it puts everyone in the same boat 
(okay, aside from some slight advantage of coming from a country with 
Indo-European roots). That means no weird grammar changes or pronunciation 
fiascos. 

Frankly, one of the larger annoyances with many new names these days is that 
they incorporate local languages in them such that it's impossible to know the 
pronunciation without hearing the authors pronounce it themselves. At least 
with Latin and ancient Greek, one had a fighting chance.

Jason




On Monday, July 27, 2020, 9:27:38 PM CDT, Tim Williams <tijawi@gmail.com> 
wrote: 


That's a cop-out.  If you want to name a genus or species using Latin
or ancient Greek, but can't be bothered constructing the name
properly... then why use these 'dead' languages at all?  We may not
speak Latin or ancient Greek any more, but both are most often the
go-to languages when we want to create a new name.  Therefore, we
should take the time to combine the words together correctly, rather
than just 'cut-and-paste' them together.

Not everyone can be expected to be across every detail of Latin or
Greek grammar and vocabulary - I'm certainly not.  So if in doubt, ask
someone who is.  Just email them.  In my experience, people who are
conversant in these ancient languages are only too happy to help.
Such diligence might have spared us atrocities like
_Notatesseraeraptor_.

In general, I think "tradition" and "propriety" are important in
nomenclature.  Rather than being swept away by the arc of history,
modern nomenclature can continue it.  Genus and species names are a
lot more than "just a label" stuck on a specimen for convenience.  I
think the naming of a new taxon should be more than just a perfunctory
act, done simply to replace a specimen number.  You are naming a
creature that is entirely new to science, and the name will most
likely outlive you.  After all the time and effort that goes into
describing a new taxon, I'm surprised at how little attention some
people give to actually naming the thing.



On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 9:14 PM Mickey Mortimer
<mickey_mortimer111@msn.com> wrote:
>
> There's no harm, but I also don't see a pragmatic point to doing so.  From 
> the perspective of a scientist, a name is just a label, so so you'd want 
> something that aids in communication- unique, memorable, easy to write and 
> say, etc..  But Latin hasn't been the language of the world or the language 
> of science for decades and there's no reason to believe it will be again.  
> The hard fact of the world is the vast majority of scientists don't learn 
> Latin or Greek, have little reason to do so, and the current language of 
> science is English.  So why do you care if they follow archaic rules that are 
> only of use to historians when creating a biological label?  As someone so in 
> thrall with the Shiny Digital Future, can't you see this is just 'tradition' 
> and 'propriety' that is being swept away by the arc of history?
>
> Mickey Mortimer
>
> ________________________________
> From: dinosaur-l-request@mymaillists.usc.edu 
> <dinosaur-l-request@mymaillists.usc.edu> on behalf of Tim Williams 
> <tijawi@gmail.com>
> Sent: Monday, July 27, 2020 3:36 AM
> To: dinosaur-l@usc.edu <dinosaur-l@usc.edu>
> Subject: Re: [dinosaur] RETRACTION: Oculudentavis, new smallest known 
> Mesozoic bird in amber from Cretaceous of Myanmar
>
> Mike Taylor <sauropoda@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Mickey Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > While I couldn't care less about proper Latin or Greek formulation in names,
>
> It pains me to read that, Mickey.  Personally, I wince whenever I see
> a badly formed name - including _Oculudentavis_.  Based on the
> comments by other DML contributors, I'm heartened that I'm not the
> only one who thinks this way.  Where's the harm in authors trying just
> a bit harder to get their names right?