# No wrong or right way to pronounce scientific names?



## AE35Unit (Apr 28, 2010)

I put up  a list of scientific  names of Tarantulas with pronunciation guide on a Tarantula forum and got told 'there is no wrong or right way to pronounce scientific names'. But surely there are 'rules' in  nomenclature, for example o and e together making an ee sound as in Coelacanth (see la kanth).
Arent these rules of pronunciation set in stone, rigid?


----------



## j d worthington (Apr 28, 2010)

There are correct and incorrect ways of pronouncing _any_ word with such an etymology; but there are dialectical variants in speech which can make a difference without being "wrong" (although technically incorrect). For example, the British pronunciation which stood for so long when it came to Latin is often quite different from what has been determined to be the correct pronunciation of the language in its prime; yet the British pronunciation remains so accepted that many (if not all) Latin dictionaries include it as a "proper" variant.

So, while there is a certain leeway in the pronunciation of many such terms, there is nonetheless a right and a wrong way to pronounce such things... Some, of course, are _completely_ off, while others are approximations which are acceptable. It all depends into which category a particular choice falls.


----------



## The Judge (Apr 28, 2010)

I'm not a scientist, but I'd have thought there was a generally accepted way of pronouncing technical words.  If the point of communication is to be understod, then it is important to use pronunciations which will be understood, and while there is leeway for accents and the like, any free-for-all in how a word is pronounced and understanding goes out the window.

Was the person who told you there is no right and wrong someone whose opinion you respect?  Someone who has any standing in the scientific community?  If the answers are no and no, ignore him/her.


----------



## skeptical (Apr 28, 2010)

Most scientific terms are from Latin or ancient Greek.   Simply, no-one has the faintest idea of how either language was pronounced.   So we make it up as we go along.


----------



## j d worthington (Apr 29, 2010)

skeptical said:


> Most scientific terms are from Latin or ancient Greek. Simply, no-one has the faintest idea of how either language was pronounced. So we make it up as we go along.


 
Erm, you might want to try again on that. While it is not "set in stone", we have some pretty darned good evidence concerning such, which has been painstakingly put together over the centuries, and refined as further information has come to light... but that's just it: it has been refined, not overturned, because it _is_ based on such painstaking and careful research:

Latin spelling and pronunciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Traditional English pronunciation of Latin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_phonology

http://www.oeaw.ac.at/kal/agp/

http://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/koinonia/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=15


In other words, it's a_ looooong_ way from "no one having the faintest idea how either language was pronounced"....


----------



## The Judge (Apr 29, 2010)

Thinking about it, the person who said there is no right and wrong, does he pronounce Tarantula as Tar-an-chu-la?  Presumably so, as this is expected.  How would he react if someone said Tar-an-tooo-la?  I'm willing to bet he'd correct the mispronunciation...


----------



## j d worthington (Apr 29, 2010)

The Judge said:


> Thinking about it, the person who said there is no right and wrong, does he pronounce Tarantula as Tar-an-chu-la? Presumably so, as this is expected. How would he react if someone said Tar-an-tooo-la? I'm willing to bet he'd correct the mispronunciation...


 
Or to rhyme with the name of the dance, the tarantella.... (Hey, at least that one would make some bizarre sort of sense....)


----------



## The Judge (Apr 29, 2010)

Personally, the last thing I'd do if bitten by a big hairy spider is start dancing, but there's no accounting for taste, I suppose.


----------



## skeptical (Apr 29, 2010)

Ultimately, correct pronunciation is whatever is most easily understood.   Go with what the majority do.


----------



## j d worthington (Apr 29, 2010)

skeptical said:


> Ultimately, correct pronunciation is whatever is most easily understood. Go with what the majority do.


 
Nope. _Correct_ pronunciation is whatever is based on the established rules of etymology and phonology. "Nuc-*u-*lar" ain't correct, and never will be. The word is "nu-cle-ar" (three syllables), nor is it "nu-cleer" (two). As noted above, there is some leeway due to dialectical variants in pronunciation and, with ancient languages, lack of complete certainty (no sonic recordings, for instance, though plenty of indications from grammarians, rhetoricians, and the like, who were aware of the importance of how something sounded in its effect on the auditors); but there are completely wrong ways of doing these things, as well as some which are more correct (or less incorrect) than others.

The above idea is, I am afraid, yet another example of the creeping (pffft! _rampant!_) relativism which has been the result of lazy scholarship and lax educational standards of the twentieth century in such matters, rather than a genuinely defensible position. (No offense meant toward you personally, skeptical; but the _position_ itself is simply nonsensical to its core.)


----------



## AE35Unit (Apr 29, 2010)

Well the person in question is a bit of a scholar in Theraphosid taxonomy and also taught Latin many years ago so I  would expect him to say Taran choo la, as I do.


----------



## Ursa major (Apr 29, 2010)

The Judge said:


> Personally, the last thing I'd do if bitten by a big hairy spider is start dancing, but there's no accounting for taste, I suppose.


What if it was wielding an ermine gavotte?


----------



## The Judge (Apr 29, 2010)

The thought occurred to me...


----------



## skeptical (Apr 29, 2010)

To j.d.

It is possible to be a pronunciation purist, but how far do you keep it going?

We have words in English that are spelt according to a long-lost pronunciation, but are currently pronounced very differently.

Think of all the words starting with 'k' which is now silent.
e.g. know, knife, knapp etc. Are you purist enough to pronounce the 'k'? After all, that was the original pronunciation.

Reality is that the way words are spoken changes over time. Purists rail about the changes, and often the verbal academic generation have to die off before the new pronunciations are accepted. However, English is a dynamic language and every generation speaks it just a little differently to the previous. We can fight the changes tooth and nail, but are doomed to fail, if only because we die.

Personally, I regard change as healthy.  Anything that does not change is static, and probably already dead.   Latin does not change.   And which nation speaks it?


----------



## mosaix (Apr 29, 2010)

Don't get me started on "Nuc-*u-*lar", J.D. Wasn't that one of George Bush's favourite words?

I spent half my life persuading my children to pronounce words correctly only to have so called T.V. and radio 'personalities' mispronounce every single possible word they could think of.

Mind you, I think I did a pretty good job in the end. Both my kids are more critical of these people than I am now.


----------



## j d worthington (Apr 30, 2010)

skeptical said:


> To j.d.
> 
> It is possible to be a pronunciation purist, but how far do you keep it going?
> 
> ...


 
Granted, there is change in language (even Latin went through such changes for many centuries, as did Greek). But such is a gradual change, following fairly well recognized "rules" of phonology and dialectical interchange, and is a vastly different thing from ignoring correct pronunciation which is still very much in effect, or (worse yet) saying that correct pronunciation is a null concept. Again, that is simply nonsense, and taking the natural evolution of a language as a license for the sort of orthographic and phonetic chaos which one sees in many earlier ages following the fall of Rome. (Look at the books of the 15th to 17th centuries, for example, where spelling _even by the same author_ often varied _on the same page!_)

Latin continued to change, and isn't actually a dead language (save for the purest classical forms), but engendered (with cross-pollination) all the romance languages which became many of the modern languages of today; much as some of the dinosaurs evolved to become various species of birds which are still with us.

So, again, what I object to is not the normal sort of change language goes through over time, but rather the arbitrary disregarding of those rules of pronunciation which are still very much in existence, and one of the main reasons for such objection is that that sort of thing does cut down on clear communication. Look at how bastardized modern English is in comparison to, say, what it was a century and a half ago (or even less). Compare the writing of someone like John Collier or Shirley Jackson -- both popular writers, remember, published in some of the nation's major popular magazines -- to analogous writers today. There is less precision, and therefore less nuance, subtlety, and hence a coarsening of the layers of emotional response, association, complexity and ambiguity of impression, let alone all the stylistic niceties which were so common throughout most of the history of Western literature.

So with ignoring the proper pronunciation of words which are well-established: try a subtle change in pronouncing homoousian and homoiousian, and see what sort of chaos ensues in trying to communicate!

As for the point with scientific terminology which comes from classical Greek and Latin... as these are well-established pronunciations, and as the language isn't changing, the problems with such an idea is all the more evident. _Precision is the very essence of scientific communication, or, when it come to that, genuine communication of any kind_....


----------



## skeptical (Apr 30, 2010)

Actually, JD, I disagree with you on your assessment of English.   I think that the recent changes have made it more exciting, and more useful.    The changes in the English language reflect the changes in society.   Science, technology, social mores,  economics, politics.   Never in human history has there been such an exciting time with so much change going on.  And the changes in the English language reflect the wider changes.

And I think you may have misunderstood when I said we do not know how Latin was pronounced.  There are some rules that have survived.  I actually studied Latin many decades back at High School.  Two years wasted.   Our Latin teacher taught us the basic rules, but emphasized that the accent and subtleties were all lost.

So, I am aware that the famous phrase by Julius Caesar : "_Vini, Vidi, Vici_"  is actually pronounced something like Weeny, weedy, weechy.    However, if the very best Latin scholar of the 20th century were transported by a time machine to ancient Rome, he would struggle like hell to understand the Romans, and they would struggle like hell to understand him.   Reason - the accent.  Though I am sure he would adapt quickly and learn their means of pronunciation.


----------



## Dave (Apr 30, 2010)

Languages are constantly changing but Scientific Nomenclature should not. Surely that was the very reason Linnaeus chose Latin (a very peculiar man from a very peculiar family, but it was a good idea.)


----------



## Ursa major (Apr 30, 2010)

AE35Unit said:


> 'there is no wrong or right way to pronounce scientific names'


There may be many ways of pronouncing a word that are considered acceptable. To state that there are _no_ wrong ways is daft. What use is there saying a word with a unique, personal pronunciation? What if one were to decide to pronounce the word, daft, as clog? Who but the speaker would have any idea what he or she had said?

Words are used for communication; rob them of _any_** means to determine what they are negates their purpose.


I'm assuming, by the way, that this is not what that other poster meant at all. It's a shame that communication is not their strongest suit.





** - Where dialects have very odd pronunciations, knowing that one is dealing with a dialect version of a word helps one determine what the speaker might have meant.


----------



## AE35Unit (Apr 30, 2010)

Oh I totally agree Urs! Scientific names are called scientific for a reason,there are certain mores as to how words or letter combinations should be pronounced. After all when learning a new language it is vital to get the pronunciation/diction spot on-I know this from someone teaching me russian! I just wish we'd done latin at school- love the language!


----------



## Ursa major (Apr 30, 2010)

When I was first taught Latin, the teacher insisted that its *v* should be pronounced as an English *w*, to the extent of railing against what he saw as the prevailing fashion. Subsequent teachers - none of whom managed to get the language to stick in my brain - preferred what was then the orthodox pronunciation (or so I believed at the time; and still do, not having researched the matter since).

Can anyone tell me what today's view on this is?


----------



## AE35Unit (Apr 30, 2010)

For anyone interested this is what I'm working on, and I hope to sumit it, along with one for species names, to the British Tarantula Society-hopefully it will appear in a BTS Journal one day:

Ceratogyrus= Kerra tuh GUY russ
Pterinochilus= Teh rin uh KY luss (teh as in yea)
Schizopelma= Skits uh PEL ma
Citharichius= Sith are RIcky us
Hysterocrates (this one I'm not sure of!) Hiss ter OCK rat ease
Acanthoscurria=A can tho SCU rea (the tho is short,not like 'though')
Lasiodora= Lazzeeo DOOR ah
Harpactira=Harp ACTOR ah
Poecilotheria= Pea see luh THEE rea
Avicularia=A vik you LAIR ear
Psalmopoeus=Sarmo PEA us or PIE us
Tapinauchenius=Tap in or KEEN ee us
Aphonopelma= Aff on o PEL ma
Hemmirhagus= Hem me (Hemmy) RAR guss
Pamphobeteus= Pamfo but EE us
Xenesthis=Zen ESS this or tis
Phormictopus=Form ik TOE puss or tu puss
(Opus,meaning foot, is normally pronounced oh puss)
Cheatopelma=Cheat uh PEL ma
Chilobrachys=Kai luh BRAK iss
Coreomiocnemis(still valid?)Corr eeo me-ock  NEE miss
Ephebopus=Eff e BOE puss
Eucratoscelus=You crat oh SELL us or SEAL us
Eupalaestrus=You pal EE struss
Ornithoctonus=Or nith ock TOE nuss
Pseudotheraphosa=Soo doe therra FOE za
Encyocratella=En sigh-o crat ELLA


----------



## The Judge (Apr 30, 2010)

I can't help thinking there are way too many tarantulas out there is they have these many names -- but if it's of help, this arachnaphobe could understand the pronunciation guide.  (I don't promise to pronounce them right when I'm stamping on them, though...)


----------



## AE35Unit (Apr 30, 2010)

The Judge said:


> I can't help thinking there are way too many tarantulas out there is they have these many names -- but if it's of help, this arachnaphobe could understand the pronunciation guide.  (I don't promise to pronounce them right when I'm stamping on them, though...)



Well this is just a wee sampling! Theres thousands! Including an as yet unnamed Chicken Eating Spider!


----------



## j d worthington (Apr 30, 2010)

skeptical said:


> Actually, JD, I disagree with you on your assessment of English. I think that the recent changes have made it more exciting, and more useful. The changes in the English language reflect the changes in society. Science, technology, social mores, economics, politics. Never in human history has there been such an exciting time with so much change going on. And the changes in the English language reflect the wider changes.


 
The changes in the language when it comes to formal usage -- the scientific study of such things -- is, indeed, a gain. This goes to the point I made about precision above. The point I was making is that because of the laxity of standards in teaching such matters in general, the use of the language even among writers has degenerated to the degree where, in place of ambiguity you have vagueness, instead of rhetorical effect you have sheer pedestrianism, in place of the precise use of terms which have a wealth of associational qualities, you now have to have paragraph on paragraph to get an even approximate idea of the same concept. The language is all too often bald, featureless, journalistic, and plebeian (in the worst sense of that term). Again, all due to the idea that it only in the skeletal frame of a sentence (action-oriented verbs as opposed to descriptive adjectives, for instance) that the message lies -- which could not be farther from the truth. It is the whole, and being aware of its various associations _and sonic properties _(which, like music, if skillfully used can evoke particular emotional responses in the reader/listener), which matters.

However, this is a side issue... related, but not entirely germane to the issue at hand.



> And I think you may have misunderstood when I said we do not know how Latin was pronounced. There are some rules that have survived. I actually studied Latin many decades back at High School. Two years wasted. Our Latin teacher taught us the basic rules, but emphasized that the accent and subtleties were all lost.
> 
> So, I am aware that the famous phrase by Julius Caesar : "_Vini, Vidi, Vici_" is actually pronounced something like Weeny, weedy, weechy. However, if the very best Latin scholar of the 20th century were transported by a time machine to ancient Rome, he would struggle like hell to understand the Romans, and they would struggle like hell to understand him. Reason - the accent. Though I am sure he would adapt quickly and learn their means of pronunciation.


 
Again, there is a degree of truth to this, but it is by no means correct in the broader sense. If you mean by "accent" the modulation of the sound of a particular letter, that was dealt with above -- variants of that sort were even around in ancient Greece or the various parts of the Roman Empire... in fact, they led in large part to the differences which various regions adopted in both their use of Latin and their own indigenous tongues, while the different city-states of Greece could be compared to, say, the difference in sound between a New Yorker (with their rapid, clipped, often nasal or flattened vowels) and a Texan "twang", or the often more drawled pronunciation of the Deep South, etc. All these variants still lie within certain parameters which allow them to be recognized as within acceptable limits of pronunciation for the same words.

If by "accent" you mean stress -- that one is even less tenable, as the verse of these languages, plus the various scholastic guides which have surfaced over the years, give a fairly good approximation on that point. Granted, stress would sometimes be altered in a particular word for purposes of versification, but we still can gather a heck of a lot about such matters from comparing various sources like this... and have done so.

As for the "subtleties" -- I'm no sure to what you refer there, as that term, in this context, could cover a lot of ground. Suffice to say, though, that the comment made by the teacher was a gross oversimplification, and we have had a good knowledge of the differences in pronunciation for a very, very long time (to get us back to sff, L. Sprague de Camp makes a point of this in his early novel, *Lest Darkness Fall*, where just such an understanding is crucial to the protagonist). Again, this has been refined over the years, but the major points haven't really changed....



Ursa major said:


> When I was first taught Latin, the teacher insisted that its *v* should be pronounced as an English *w*, to the extent of railing against what he saw as the prevailing fashion. Subsequent teachers - none of whom managed to get the language to stick in my brain - preferred what was then the orthodox pronunciation (or so I believed at the time; and still do, not having researched the matter since).
> 
> Can anyone tell me what today's view on this is?


 
Big Bear: From all I have read or heard from people in the field, yes the Latin *v* should (generally) be pronounced like an English *w*, though there are some exceptions depending on the period. Again, some Latin dictionaries I have come across make quite a bit point of this, along with the particular instances of difference between the uses of *i *(whether for *j* or *i*, etc.)


----------



## AE35Unit (Apr 30, 2010)

Modern language is dumbed down chatter! Especially net speak and all these supposedly proper neologisms.


----------



## The Judge (Apr 30, 2010)

AE35Unit said:


> Well this is just a wee sampling! Theres thousands! Including an as yet unnamed Chicken Eating Spider!


 (That sound you can probably hear is me shrieking in horror...)

I don't know if it's relevant at all to what you intend, but it occurs to me a short explanation of what the Latin means might be of interest to the readers of the journal eg "big hairy-footed" (there must be at least one with that name).

Good luck with getting it finished and published anyway.


----------



## skeptical (Apr 30, 2010)

Just a comment on JD's description of widespread writing as 'pedestrian'.

Of course.   But so what?   Most writers are pedestrian and always have been.   A true and talented wordsmith is a rare individual.   I would love to have that talent.   I can write competently, and mostly my grammar and spelling are accurate, but that is a long way from being a true artist with the language.

In particular, I would love to be able to write with true humour and wit.  I love the writings of Terry Pratchett.   He is able to turn a phrase so beautifully.  

Sadly, to expect more than a very few writers to be true artists is just unrealistic.


----------



## AE35Unit (Apr 30, 2010)

The Judge said:


> (That sound you can probably hear is me shrieking in horror...)
> 
> I don't know if it's relevant at all to what you intend, but it occurs to me a short explanation of what the Latin means might be of interest to the readers of the journal eg "big hairy-footed" (there must be at least one with that name).
> 
> Good luck with getting it finished and published anyway.


Hmm. well I dont know Latin that well but i know a few pieces of tarantula etymology. A lot of them have pelma in the name,which means foot or leg. (the mexican red knee is a Brachypelma  which means thick footed, and Lampropelma means bright foot. Brachypelma albopilosum would therefore mean thick footed white haired tarantula,altho theyre actually pink)


Any with Mega in the name mean big, micro means small etc, but its very hard, epsecially with ones like poecilotheria!


----------



## j d worthington (May 1, 2010)

skeptical said:


> Just a comment on JD's description of widespread writing as 'pedestrian'.
> 
> Of course. But so what? Most writers are pedestrian and always have been. A true and talented wordsmith is a rare individual. I would love to have that talent. I can write competently, and mostly my grammar and spelling are accurate, but that is a long way from being a true artist with the language.
> 
> ...


 
Again, there is some truth to that, but I would say, from my reading of different periods (both popular and "literary") that this tendency has increased tremendously since the early to mid-20th century, as a result (for one thing) of the Hemingway revolution and the modernist and post-modernist phases. (Don't get me wrong; each of these also contributed some very worthwhile things to literature. But they _did_ have their unfortunate fallout as well.) Before that point, writers were encouraged to use the language not only to convey the general idea, but also specifics and nuances, as well as to use all the rhetorical techniques which had been developed since the beginnings of western literature. With such an approach, even a mediocre writer was simply better for the effort, for they were more conscious of the subtleties, shadings, and effects of language and varying literary techniques.

Sadly, with the near-abandonment of such an approach, the text of so many even good writers has become so mundane and, yes, pedestrian throughout, that it simply doesn't bear any critical reading. It is flat, lifeless, unconvincing, and fails to convey any genuinely deep, mature emotion, settling for the coarsest, most stereotyped language and approach, and having little or no depth beyond that of the daily newspaper or a mediocre comic book.

Again, though, this is, while somewhat connected, straying considerably from the main topic here, and is perhaps better taken up elsewhere if anyone is interested....

Larry: that guide you posted does seem to me to be about as clear (and helpful) as can be, and I'm afraid I am at a loss how anyone could come up with the response it engendered from this person....


----------



## AE35Unit (May 1, 2010)

Thanks JD. I got a message from one of the commitee members and unfortunately at least one of those species names is named after a person and so is pronounced totally different to how I put it! He did tell me however that its worth pursuing and they will help with any corrections. So hopefully it should appear in a journal some time!


----------



## j d worthington (May 1, 2010)

AE35Unit said:


> Thanks JD. I got a message from one of the commitee members and unfortunately at least one of those species names is named after a person and so is pronounced totally different to how I put it! He did tell me however that its worth pursuing and they will help with any corrections. So hopefully it should appear in a journal some time!


 
Yes, something like that can make a differrent, as the common pronunciation of that person's name will be given precedence over normal rules... which can be a bit bizarre, as many names have different pronunciations depending on the region which the person is from (which not uncommonly has ended up with slight variations in the spelling of the name itself in time)....

Anyway, congratulations (I hope!) and well done!


----------



## Ray Zdybrow (Jan 6, 2022)

Dunno if I posted this elsewhere, but... I'm a bit of a fan of BBC R4's "In Our Time - with Melvin Bragg!".
Every week Melvin discusses a topic with three academic experts on the subject. The experts (and Bragg) frequently pronounce technical words in the field differently, eg "fungi" could be "fun guy", "fun jeye" "fun jee" or "fun gee". None of them EVER corrects the others' pronunciation.


----------



## Ursa major (Jan 6, 2022)

Their brains are possibly temporarily addled by having to talk in the historical present tense.


----------



## Ray Zdybrow (Jan 6, 2022)

Ursa major said:


> Their brains are possibly temporarily addled by having to talk in the historical present tense.


That used to annoy me but they seem to have given it up!
It did sound silly


----------



## Ray Zdybrow (Jan 6, 2022)

Ray Zdybrow said:


> Dunno if I posted this elsewhere, but... I'm a bit of a fan of BBC R4's "In Our Time - with Melvin Bragg!".
> Every week Melvin discusses a topic with three academic experts on the subject. The experts (and Bragg) frequently pronounce technical words in the field differently, eg "fungi" could be "fun guy", "fun jeye" "fun jee" or "fun gee". None of them EVER corrects the others' pronunciation.


Btw I prefer "funguses", proper English


----------



## AE35Unit (Jan 7, 2022)

Ah, fungi


----------



## Valtharius (Jan 7, 2022)

I could discuss this subject at a length that 99.9999% of people on the planet would find torturous. I am after all, a person who, in high school, *voluntarily* read a book called _Vox Latina: the Pronounciation_ _of Classical Latin_. I'll instead cut it short and say that there are at least 3 or 4 different pronounciations for all scientific terminology that have strong arguments for being "correct".


----------



## Ursa major (Jan 7, 2022)

Valtharius said:


> there are at least 3 or 4 different pronounciations for all scientific terminology that have strong arguments for being "correct"


...but it's far from certain that any of them would sound like "Groot"....


----------



## farntfar (Jan 7, 2022)

On the question of correct pronunciation of classical languauges, I would be entirely unsurprised to find that almost everybody pronounces PLATO wrongly.
Is it plah toe rather that Plate oh for instance. (The French call him Platon, (and Bilbo Bilbon, Frodo Froddon etc). So that doesn't help)
And don't get me started about Uranus which only changed it's name to avoid amusing schoolboys.

Oh. And Caesar or Kayser?


----------



## Ursa major (Jan 7, 2022)

farntfar said:


> Oh. And Caesar or Kayser?


The rulers of the Russian empire were Tsars but, as far as I know (and unlike the version we're confronting at the moment), none of them were ever airborne, so they didn't catch on elsewhere**.... 


** - Just to be pedantic, there were earlier Tsars, in Bulgaria and Serbia, but they didn't catch it from the Russians.


----------

