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: http://www.shieldsgardens.com/ Westfield, Indiana 46074, USA Tel. ++1-317-867-3344 or toll-free 1-866-449-3344 in USA