[Taxacom] Help sought - re. spelling of Rhamnoides.

Jacques Melot jacques.melot at isholf.is
Thu Dec 27 06:42:53 CST 2007


  Le 27/12/07, à 3:08 -0600, nous recevions de Mario Blanco :

>According to Article 60.6 of the latest version of the International
>Code of Botanical Nomenclature, diacritical signs are to be suppressed
>from Latin plant names. However, the use of the diaeresis is permissible
>(that is, optional; you can choose to use it or not).
>
>"60.6. Diacritical signs are not used in Latin plant names. In names
>(either new or old) drawn from words in which such signs appear, the
>signs are to be suppressed with the necessary transcription of the
>letters so modified; for example ä, ö, ü become, respectively, ae, oe,
>ue; é, è, ê become e, or sometimes ae; ñ becomes n; ø becomes oe; å
>becomes ao. The diaeresis, indicating that a vowel is to be pronounced
>separately from the preceding vowel (as in Cephaëlis, Isoëtes), is
>permissible; the ligatures -æ- and -¦-, indicating that the letters are
>pronounced together, are to be replaced by the separate letters -ae- and
>-oe-."


[J. M.]   Je ne suis pas sûr que cet article 
s'applique au cas de Rhamnoides. En effet, tout 
botaniste est censé savoir que « oi » est 
prononcé à la latine (o-i, en séparant les 
voyelles) et non à la française (oi = wa), par 
exemple.

    La diérèse sert à indiquer qu'une succession 
de voyelles a-e ou o-e, qui pourrait provenir des 
ligatures ae (æ) ou oe (¦), est a prononcer 
séparément.

    En d'autres termes :

Cephaëlis signifie que ae n'est pas la ligature ae (æ).
Isoëtes signifie que oe n'est pas la ligature oe (¦).

    L'écriture Rhamnoïdes n'est pas conforme au 
Code (il n'existe aucune ligature oi). Il s'agit 
d'un résidu d'une ancienne écriture utilisée 
notamment en France, pour aider à la 
prononciation. La seule écriture acceptable est 
donc Rhamnoides.

    Meilleurs salutations,

    Jacques Melot


>--
>Mario A. Blanco
>Department of Botany
>University of Florida
>220 Bartram Hall
>Gainesville, FL 32611-8526
>U.S.A.
>
>
>Peter Bostock wrote:
>>   W.T. Stearn in Botanical Latin edn 4 page 257 (with Greek
>>   transliterated):
>>
>>   "Transliterated into Latin, the masculine and feminine ending
>>   "oeides" (long e in final syllable) and the neuter "oeides" (short e
>>   in final syllable) become -oides. This comprises two parts: the -o-
>>   which belongs to the stem and -eides (having the nature of,
>>   resembling) [written in Greek script in Stearn] from eidos (shape,
>>   kind, nature). The -oi- of -oides should accordingly be pronounced as
>>   two short vowels oi, and not as a dipthong (ie not as in English
>>   'adenoid')..."
>>
>>   I think that use of the diaeresis would be helpful to indicate the
>>   separate vowels, much as in Isöetes, but this rarely (never?) seems
>>   to be applied to generic names possessing this ending (eg Nymphoides
>>   and perhaps a hundred others).
>>
>>   Cheers,
>>
>>   Peter
>>
>>   At 01:47 PM 23/12/2007, Thomas Lammers wrote:
>>  > Over the e or over the i? I think it's a dieresis:
>>  > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaeresis This tells us that the o and
>>  > i are to be pronounced separately, not as a diphthong:
>>  >
>>  > "ram-no-EYE-dees" not "ram-NOI-dees"
>>  >
>>  > ----- Original Message ----- From: john.steel at botany.otago.ac.nz
>>  > Date: Saturday, December 22, 2007 6:33 pm Subject: [Taxacom] Help
>>  > sought - re. spelling of Rhamnoides. To:
>>  > taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu, taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>>  >
>>  >> I have occasionally come across Rhamnoides spelt with an umlaut
>>  >> over the -e- in english language texts.
>>  >>
>>  >> Can anyone help me as to the justification, correctness (?),
>>  >> authority, or whatever, of this spelling?
>>  >>
>>  >> Thanks in advance and compliments of the season to you all.
>>  >>
>  > >> John Steel.


More information about the Taxacom mailing list