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

[Jacques Melot]

  Le 27/12/07, ? 21:45 +0000, nous recevions de Jacques Melot :
>  Le 27/12/07, ? 12:42 +0000, nous recevions de Jacques Melot :
>
>>   Le 27/12/07, ? 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 ?, ?, ? become, respectively, ae, oe,
>>>ue; ?, ?, ? become e, or sometimes ae; ? becomes n; ? becomes oe; ?
>>>becomes ao. The diaeresis, indicating that a vowel is to be pronounced
>>>separately from the preceding vowel (as in Cepha?lis, Iso?tes), is
>>>permissible; the ligatures -?- and -?-, indicating that the letters are
>>>pronounced together, are to be replaced by the separate letters -ae- and
>>  >-oe-."
>
>
>[J. M.]   John Steel me pr?cise en priv? que 
>c'?tait bien sur le ? e ? qu'il a trouv? 
>l'indication de la di?r?se, soit Rhamnoid?s.
>
>    Dans ce cas, il ne peut s'agir que d'une 
>erreur, car la di?r?se (gr. diairesis) suppose 
>deux voyelles ? prononcer s?par?ment. Ici la 
>lettre ? e ? est pr?c?d?e et suivie 
>imm?diatement d'une consonne (? d ? devant, 
>? s ? apr?s) ! A moins que quelque chose m'ait 
>?chapp?, l'?criture ? Rhamnoid?s ? est 
>ind?fendable et doit ?tre rejet?e.
>
>    Le seul autre usage possible du signe ? est 
>l'indication de la m?taphonie (en allemand : 
>Umlaut), qui, comme un accent (aigu, grave, 
>circonflexe), modifie la prononciation de la 
>voyelle sur laquelle le signe ? est utilis? : 
>cet usage est explicitement _prohib?_ par le 
>Code (? 60.6. [...] [...] the signs are to be 
>_suppressed_ with the _necessary transcription_ 
>of the letters so modified; for example _?, ?, 
>?_ become, respectively, ae, oe, ue; ?, ?, ? 
>become e, or sometimes ae [...]). De plus, dans 
>les langues ?crites avec l'alphabet roman o? la 
>m?taphonie est indiqu?e par le signe ?, la 
>m?taphonie touche le ? a ?, le ? o ?, le ? u ?, 
>mais jamais le ? e ?, en particulier dans les 
>langues germaniques !
>
>    Meilleures salutations,
>
>    Jacques Melot (Reykjavik)


P.-S.   Une recherche dans Google donne :

Rhamnoides : 142 000 occurrences.
Rhamno?des : 430 occurrences.
Rhamnoid?s : 1 occurrence (hapax !).

    ?a ne prouve rien, mais c'est une indication.

    J. M.


>>[J. M.]   Je ne suis pas s?r que cet article
>>s'applique au cas de Rhamnoides. En effet, tout
>>botaniste est cens? savoir que ? oi ? est
>>prononc? ? la latine (o-i, en s?parant les
>>voyelles) et non ? la fran?aise (oi = wa), par
>>exemple.
>>
>>     La di?r?se sert ? indiquer qu'une succession
>>de voyelles a-e ou o-e, qui pourrait provenir des
>>ligatures ae (?) ou oe (?), est a prononcer
>>s?par?ment.
>>
>>     En d'autres termes :
>>
>>Cepha?lis signifie que ae n'est pas la ligature ae (?).
>>Iso?tes signifie que oe n'est pas la ligature oe (?).
>>
>>     L'?criture Rhamno?des n'est pas conforme au
>>Code (il n'existe aucune ligature oi). Il s'agit
>>d'un r?sidu d'une ancienne ?criture utilis?e
>>notamment en France, pour aider ? la
>>prononciation. La seule ?criture 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 Is?etes, 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.