Re: Hosta ?? jonEsii
There seems to be a general consensus, which I join, that Neil's quote from Stearn's Botanical Latin is a good and practical attitude.
For those who want to dot the eyes and cross the tees, I want to follow up on the exchange between Ben and Bonaventure.
The inclusion of proper names within species names is a sticky problem. Is it
clive + i + a, jones + i + i
cli + vi + a, jo + ne + si +i
cli + wi + a, yo + ne + si +i
(remember, "j" = "i" and "v" = "u", and therefore "jo" = "yo" and "vi" = "wi")
And after all, what about "warscewiczii"?
I would like to propose a compromise-- dare I say, a solomonic split. This is, as I said, purely academic, because we all seem to be more or less latitudinarian on pronunciation. So the following is merely my humble opinion, ok?
1) The actual sounds of an included name should be preserved, 2) but adjusted to the speaker's and hearers' language, to keep the pronunciation easy to say and understand, 3) and the accentuation should be Latin.
1) Simply put, nobody is going to recognize what you're talking about if you refer to the "clih-wee-ah" or the "yo-nay-zee-eye." Since we all see the inclusion of the proper names in these plant names, someone we speak to will be listening for the "Jones" and the "Clive" and even the "Warscewicz." They will understand us better if we keep the person's name sounding somewhat like itself.
2) However, dear old Fowler (who wrote the book about English), said that foreign words used in an English sentence should be pronounced in a somewhat Anglicized fashion. He said something about how awkward it is to suddenly reshape one's mouth to pronounce a foreign word, and then quickly reshape it back into English. I think he was right.
Lady Clive and Dr. Jones were lucky to have names from the British Isles, easy for English speakers to pronounce. Dr. Warscewicz is less lucky; he gets the "WORSE-of-its," so to speak. Most English speakers, unfortunately, will not recognize "Varsh-TSE-veech" as Warscewicz.
3) In English, and probably a lot of other languages, one of the most important ways that many Latin-derived words are distinguished from Anglo-Saxon-derived words is that Latin accents move around, Anglo-Saxon accents don't.
So in this spirit, I suggest that accents for species names ending in -ii or -ia should remain on the antepenultimate syllable (the syllable before the next to the last).
Note, an English speaker wouldn't recognize "mill-TONE" any more than a Polish speaker would recognize "worse-of-ITS." Like rounding numbers, the unfairness gets averaged out.
The main points, again, are that the sound of proper names should be preserved, and that Latin accentuation should be preserved, but that adjustments should be made for the linguistic environment of the conversation.
Just a practical suggestion, nothing etched in stone.
Thanks for the nice things you all said.
(Even you, Mr. Eels? Isles? Ales? Ron! for being a good sport about this.)
In a message dated Thu, 17 Jan 2002 9:32:41 AM Eastern Standard Time, firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
> Oh yeah?
> What about Miltonia warscewiczii?? Warscewicz is Varsh-TSE-veech.
> Bonaventure Magrys
> Cliffwood Beach, NJ USA
> <email@example.com To: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> enuniv.nl> cc:
> Sent by: Subject: Hosta ?? jonEsii
> 01/16/2002 10:18 AM > In my humble opinion: As soon as a woord is latinized as in
> naming species it should be pronounced as such irrespective the
> source That is why I prefer not to say Hosta jonesii in the english
> way but always say JonEsii ( with the E as the a in in Take and
> also with two times the same sound at the end prounced as the ea
> in peat)
> Ben J.M.Zonneveld
> Clusius lab pobox 9505
> 2300 RA Leiden
> The Netherlands
> Fax: 31-71-5274999