J.E. Shields
Tue, 27 Jul 2010 06:40:11 PDT
So it's small wonder that Botanical Latin begins to seem a bit like Ben's 
description of English -- it seems to be a language defined by a committee!

Peter Smithers used to say that Botanical Latin is a written language 
rather than a spoken language.  So we are on our own, it seems.

Jim Shields

At 10:02 PM 7/26/2010 -0700, you wrote:

>On Jul 26, 2010, at 9:07 PM, Adam Fikso wrote:
>One point that seems to be lost here is that Botanical Latin is a
>separate, somewhat artificially created language composed mainly of
>Latin and Greek with snatches of many other languages.  The syntax is
>mainly dictated by classical Latin, but the vocabulary has been built
>gradually over almost three centuries since Linnaeus and codified by
>nomenclatural committees of the International Botanical Congresses.
>It is not classical Latin.  Even if you choose to pronounce most of
>it according to the Revised Academic Pronunciation (which is what we
>were taught in U.S. high schools and colleges), there are words in
>Botanical Latin that are not of Latin origin and thus are pronounced
>as in their original languages. .......
>John C. MacGregor

Jim Shields             USDA Zone 5             Shields Gardens, Ltd.
P.O. Box 92              WWW:
Westfield, Indiana 46074, USA
Tel. ++1-317-867-3344     or      toll-free 1-866-449-3344 in USA

More information about the pbs mailing list