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

[Jacques Melot]

  Le 28/12/07, ? 1:03 +0000, nous recevions de S.R.Edwards :

>For once, in such matters, nobody has (yet) quoted from Stearn (WT. 1992.
>Botanical Latin (edn 4). David & Charles). Stearn is quite specific, pp.
>257-258, and to summarise he says that '-oides' consists of two parts: the
>'-o-' which belongs to the stem, and '-ides' meaning resembling (i.e.
>Rhamno-ides). He says: "The -oi- of -oides should accordingly be pronounced
>as 40 and not as a dipthong (i.e. not as in English 'adenoid')". In this
>quotation by Stearn, the '40' (this is 'oi' in case the symbols get garbled
>by email) each have little cup-marks over them, indicating distinct SHORT
>vowels (NOT 'oh-eye'), and that they should be pronounced separately. This,
>I understand, makes them a diaeresis, and means that the diaeresis mark over
>the second vowel is appropriate, at least in English, and indeed useful for
>indicating pronunciation, and at least 'permissible' in the Code.


[J. M.]   Comme je l'ai d?j? ?crit, je ne crois 
pas que cela soit permis par le Code, car alors 
on n'aurait pas pris une disposition particuli?re 
(en 1994, Code de Tokyo) pour le cas de deux 
voyelles identiques juxtapos?es. Par exemple, on 
?crit (cf. art. 60.9) :

rufo-olivaceus

et non :

rufo?livaceus,

forme qui serait permise, s'il fallait 
interpr?ter l'art. 60.6 dans le sens d'une simple 
indication de prononciation s?par?e dans tous les 
cas possibles de double voyelle (a?, o?, mais 
aussi o?, par exemple). Cet article, tel que je 
l'interpr?te, pour ce qui est de l'indication de 
la di?r?se, ne vaut que pour ae et oe : sa 
fonction est de permettre d'indiquer la _nature_ 
de cette double voyelle (soit ligature - et donc 
diphtongue - ? not?e ae, soit voyelles de 
prononciation s?par?e, a?). Son r?le est d'abord 
?tymologique (ou fonctionnel) avant d'?tre 
phon?tique (ce qu'il est aussi, bien s?r).

    Jacques Melot


>Now, try saying Rhamnoides with the -oi- as two distinct short vowels, and I
>find it virtually impossible for it not to come out as in adnenoid, at least
>with it not sounding like a glitch. For my whole (English) botanical life, I
>cannot remember ever having heard  -oides ever pronounced other than in
>adenoid. And as Jacques Melot points out, the diacritic sign is used 0.3%
>of the time.
>
>So it seems to me that despite the first paragraph here, we should pronounce
>it as in adenoid and not use the little dots, although if we wish we may
>follow para 1and raise the odd eyebrow.
>
>Sean
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>Sean Edwards, Vine Cottage, The Street, Thursley, Surrey GU8 6QF, UK
>sean.r.edwards at btinternet.com
>tel: 01252-702-890 cell: 07768-706-295