Wouldn't the -rhous suffix come from a Greek stem?
Edit: Come to think of it, wouldn't the haemo- prefix be from the Greek as well? I thought Latin for 'blood' would be 'sanguinus' (or something similar).
I don't think that there are any 'rules'. Northern Continental Latin pronunciation is commonly used for scientific names (by English-speakers anyway), but Ferguson-Lees and Blunt have both recently argued (in British Birds) for the use of classical pronunciation as a standard (except for eponyms, for which the native pronunciation should be used). Personally, I prefer classical, mainly because it's what I learnt (under duress!) at school.Are there actually formal rules about the pronunciation of scientific names or can it vary by the spelling conventions/phoneme vocabulary of the native language of the speaker? The latter is what I've always tended to assume in my unreflective way. Thus (since this is an English language forum) my "hem/heem" suggestion in post #24.
....except for eponyms, for which the native pronunciation should be used....
It might take a little research - but surely that's half the fun! Otherwise I can't imagine how an average English-speaker would pronounce przewalskii or tschebaiewi, for example.But how exactly is the "average" reader who speaks only his native tongue supposed to manage the "native pronunciation" of personal names, just take a running jump at it? If it's just a matter of approximating the native pronunciation--which surely is the most that can be hoped for in many cases--how close must the approximation be to pass muster?
Except that scientific names are extremely useful and often the only common point of reference when talking to a non-English-speaking birder. English Method pronunciation (with completely different vowel sounds) certainly doesn't help.Fortunately, none of this has much practical significance, since what really counts is how the names are written, not spoken.
. . .Except that scientific names are extremely useful and often the only common point of reference when talking to a non-English-speaking birder. .....
You're probably right. I just find it easier to follow a simple pronunciation guide (taking maybe five minutes to learn?), rather than repeatedly trying to guess pronunciations on a case-by-case basis (inevitably heavily driven by one's own native language/dialect).True enough, but do the details of pronunciation matter all that much?
I served my time as an altar boy in our Roman Catholic church, but the bastardised Latin that we recited every Sunday could have been Martian for all I knew.Many thanks for the link. Especially useful for a native speaker of American English who used Church Latin pronunciation for four years in a Western Ukrainian Catholic rite minor seminary (I was an undetected crypto-Lutheran) and then adopted Russian as my second language (out of necessity: if I didn't flunk out of the Defense Language Institute in 1967, I wouldn't be sent to Viet Nam -- the US Army's way of "incentivizing" soldiers). My conflicting phonemic structures could stand a little tidying.
I served my time as an altar boy in our Roman Catholic church, but the bastardised Latin that we recited every Sunday could have been Martian for all I knew.
However, on no account would we be taught the very odd established 'English' prounciations (for example, 'ee-eye' instead of 'ee-ee' for the Latin ending '...ii'.):t: