BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="l_raty" data-source="post: 3493029" data-attributes="member: 24811">I've not seen any reaction from her side.My reading of the wording of the current Code is that it forbids changing anything in the original spelling of a name, except in a strictly limited number of situations explicitly listed in Art. 32.5. which does not include genitive endings. But genitive endings had to be corrected to match grammar under all previous editions, and this situation in the present Code is presumably a consequence of poor editing. (When the 4th ed. was prepared, there were plans to remove all the grammatical stuff from the Code: in early draft versions, the article about genitive endings (31.1) had been entirely deleted. It was reintegrated at the last minute, quite clearly in a hurry, and without paying attention to the rest of the text, that had been adapted to its absence.)In the Code, two distinct 'methods' are offered: one is to latinize the name and inflect the latinized form according to the rules of Latin grammar; the other is supposed to apply to names of modern persons only, and consist in the 'artificial' addition of -i, -ae, -orum or -arum to the unmodified name. Of course, authors often do/did not state which method they are/were using, and the result of the second method can typically be matched by a particular application of the first one.Yes, I agree that you might in principle latinize Susanna to Susanius; and, if you do, the genitive is unquestionably Susanii. I'm just not convinced this is what most people would have done with that name (i.e., susannae, susannai, susannii or susanni, all seem more likely to me).</blockquote>

Verification