Correct Scientific Pronounciations Needed... (1 Viewer)

[aquablue]

For example how do I get the correct pronounciation for Dumetella Carolinensis (or Gray Catbird) online (audio file or key)? I must learn, for my research, how to correcly pronouce the scientific names of birds. Please help. Thanks!

 

[John Cantelo]

There was a detailed article about how scientific names should be pronounced and a similarly scholarly letter in response in the journal 'British Birds' recently. You could always contact them (they're online) and see if you can get a copy,

 

[Capercaillie71]

There was a thread about this on birdforum a while back, but I can't find it now. I did manage to find these two sites though, that I think the last thread linked to:

http://www.ai.uga.edu/mc/latinpro.pdf

http://www.saltspring.com/capewest/pron.htm

 

[Richard Klim]

There was a detailed article about how scientific names should be pronounced and a similarly scholarly letter in response in the journal 'British Birds' recently.

The letter to which John refers is:

• Blunt, A.G. 2009. Pronunciation of scientific names. British Birds 102 (1), 25-28.

It expands upon the contents of an earlier letter:

• Ferguson-Lees, J. 2008. Scientific names: abbreviations and pronunciation. British Birds 101 (2), 97-99.

Essentially, both argue for the use of classical Latin when pronouncing scientific names, also taking Latinised Greek into account. [Although Blunt sensibly suggests that elements comprising personal or place names should generally be pronounced as per the relevant modern language.]

English-speakers have traditionally used Anglo-Latin to pronounce biological names. This transforms a once beautiful and poetic language into an ugly, strangulated abomination (soft c and g, hard j, English v, exaggerated uniquely-English vowel and diphthong pronunciations, etc etc). It also limits the oft-quoted value of scientific names as a universal common denominator in communication between scientists everywhere. I regularly cringe when listening to English-speaking birders struggle with a mangled combination of Anglo-Latin and inspired (but often misguided) guesswork.

I fully support these efforts to encourage birders to adopt classical Latin pronunciation as a worldwide standard.

 

[colonelboris]

But it's fun to watch news reporters pronouncing C. difficile after the French fashion....

 

[Egret]

English-speakers have traditionally used Anglo-Latin to pronounce biological names. This transforms a once beautiful and poetic language into an ugly, strangulated abomination (soft c and g, hard j, English v, exaggerated uniquely-English vowel and diphthong pronunciations, etc etc). It also limits the oft-quoted value of scientific names as a universal common denominator in communication between scientists everywhere. I regularly cringe when listening to English-speaking birders struggle with a mangled combination of Anglo-Latin and inspired (but often misguided) guesswork.

I fully support these efforts to encourage birders to adopt classical Latin pronunciation as a worldwide standard.[/QUOTE]

Having attended many, many medical/biological lectures I am always struck by the variation in pronunciation of "standard" latin words. I'm all for it; it makes the world more fun. Having listened to the different pronunciations from Spanish birdwatchers I doubt that the "problem" is unique to the English speaking world.

Why should you "cringe"? Why not just enjoy?

 

[Richard Klim]

Having attended many, many medical/biological lectures I am always struck by the variation in pronunciation of "standard" latin words. I'm all for it; it makes the world more fun. Having listened to the different pronunciations from Spanish birdwatchers I doubt that the "problem" is unique to the English speaking world.

The problem isn't unique to the English-speaking world. Ferguson-Lees notes that Spanish- and Italian-speakers are likely to pronounce certain consonants differently for example. But at least vowel sounds are very similar to classical Latin in most (all?) other European languages, ensuring a high degree of conformity in most cases.

Why should you "cringe"? Why not just enjoy?

I admit it's often very amusing. And having been compelled to study Latin for several years and loathing every minute of it, I never thought the day would come when I would defend classical pronunciation. But something about the poetry must have impressed me, as I've never since been able to 'enjoy' listening to (even perfectly pronounced) English church Latin.

Anyway, although I was pleased to see Ferguson-Lees's and Blunt's proposals, I don't have real hopes of there being a revolution any time soon...
[And it was perhaps unfair of John and me to suggest that aquablue should become a missionary for the cause within the scope his research!]

Richard

 

[MollyM/CA]

1. Latin is a dead language. It's pointless to worry about details of pronunciation. Scholars argue about how Shakespeare spoke, and even Jane Austen, and they only died a few hundred years ago. I doubt any Roman of Caesar's time would recognise any kind of Latin speech as taught today.

2. Scientific names are Latinish, not Latin, anyway. They're Latinized Greek (Latin endings grafted onto Greek stems) or English (Latinized proper -- Linnaeus-- or place -- montevidensis-- names) or whatever. Often misspelled, too.

3. Biologists' pronunciation is neither Latin we learned in school (where we said "Kikero" nor church Latin (where we'd sing Sisero under most conductors) nor any other system. For one thing, Latin vowels are very pure (no dipthongy elisions such as we Americans tend to inflict on any and all vowels) and absolutely consistent -- they don't change according to what consonant they're next to. Properly spoken, Latin is also very unaccented to most ears -- we're used to heavy accents on one or another syllable, and also uneven duration. None of these is particularly observed in biological circles and I've been to conferences where three different PhD ecologists or botanists (plants are my thing more than birds) pronounced an uncomplicated name three different ways.

4. I see no need for anyone to be embarrassed about pronouncing Latinish names under any circumstances. If some person attached to his (or more likely his latest mentor's) particular idea of pronunciation should smirk, you can smirk right back and say "Oh, I'm sorry, I'm so used to Church (/Medieval) Latin pronunciation, how did you pronounce that?" (Do not try this if your professor is also a priest.) Or "Oh, I'm sorry, Classical Latin is so different from these macaronic forms." Or whatever comes to mind.

As for your research, that's simple. Eavesdrop on the professor and if necessary take notes and do it exactly his way. You can have lots of fun setting him up to say the names of your research subjects. (It's a pretty good working hypothesis that if your professor/research director/whatever is picking at you or anyone else about pronunciation what he means is "say it my way.")

Don't get me wrong -- never mind that this is one of my pet peeves, Latin is the most useful language I ever took in school (I'd be ashamed to say I "learned" it). For one thing, it's everywhere, in common as well as technical speech. I expect you can get a working knowledge of the meanings of the common stems about as well paying some mind to the translations of scientific names as anywhere, these days.

 

[robinm]

As someone who has spent over 40 years singing on a regular basis using "church latin" pronunciation it is very hard for me to change. My mind is conditioned to pronounce Fringilla coelebs with a soft g in the first word and the second pronounced (roughly) chaylebs.

I think the idea that the world will use a standardised latin pronunciation is probably doomed to failure.