By this principle, a phrase has a correct pronunciation when some vital mass of speech acts inside a group set up a collective commonplace. Among the many a whole lot of named dinosaur genera solely a handful are ever spoken with any frequency, so the overwhelming majority of dinosaur taxon names would not have any correct pronunciation. I’d think about that different fossil genera, most of that are much less generally recognized by far than any dinosaur, would fare even worse.
There are a few causes to doubt that descriptivism is one of the best ways to go right here. One recollects an argument from thinker of language Eric Fudge. Scientific taxon names are usually not distinctive to any specific language. If any commonplace pronunciation for a taxon identify might be established, it must be by the speech acts of people in a global group that features audio system with many and different regional accents and linguistic backgrounds. That appears unbelievable, to say the least. But it surely does occur simply the identical: “Tyrannosaurus,” for instance, appears to have an ordinary pronunciation, or no less than a spread of incorrect ones (“tier-RAIN-os-or-us” is true out, for instance). In purely probabilistic phrases, then, it is unlikely that descriptivism accounts for the pronunciation of fossil genus names.
The opposite argument towards descriptivism on this case is lots easier. Whereas there is no cosmic pronunciation key that features a commonplace pronunciation of names like “Parasaurolophus,” there’s a single authority who ought to have the ability to resolve disputes about pronunciation. That identify was coined by a selected scientist who possible had a selected pronunciation in thoughts. No matter how a vital mass of audio system do pronounce a taxon identify, it is affordable to suppose that the namer should be granted some authority over how the identify ought to be pronounced. Why not simply ask?
Asking the name-giver
Once I was youthful, my favourite Beatles track was “Rocky Raccoon.” Largely I preferred the idea of anthropomorphized animals (and could not wrap my naive prepubescent head round the concept people may have surnames like “Raccoon”), however I additionally delighted in lyrics that appeared nonsensical to me on the time. To wit:
Her identify was Magill / And he or she referred to as herself “Lil” / However everybody knew her as “Nancy”
In my thoughts, the lyric was a couple of girl who spelled her identify “Magill,” however everybody who learn the identify pronounced it “Nancy.” Oh, how that made me chortle! I used to be a straightforward viewers as a child.
I deliver this up right here as a result of by some philosophical accounts of identify semantics it may not be nonsensical to have a reputation whose correct pronunciation appears totally disconnected from its correct spelling. After we flip to a name-giver because the choose of disputes over pronunciation, we indicate that the name-giver has a privileged authority over that situation. This recollects causal-historical theories of naming (such because the one popularized by Saul Kripke, which I’ve written about elsewhere), whereby the giver of a reputation has the privileged authority to find out the identify’s extension. Whereas these theories do not essentially deal with pronunciation per se, the reasoning by which a name-giver has authority in figuring out extension (i.e., disputes get resolved by analyzing the identify’s historical past) could–and possibly should–apply to authority in figuring out pronunciation. If I’ve the particular authority to deem that my (hypothetical) daughter’s identify shall now and perpetually be “Magill,” then it should not be an excessive amount of of a leap to provide me related authority to deem that in her case the identify shall be pronounced “NANN-see.” (I would prefer to guarantee my companion that this instance is hypothetical.)
By this logic the only real authority in pronunciation of the identify “Parasaurolophus” could be William Parks, the paleontologist who coined the identify in 1922. Because the name-giver, he would decide the identify’s pronunciation. Whereas that may resolve the dispute in precept, there are two causes it would not work in observe. First: the genus description does not embrace a pronunciation key. Second: Parks has been lifeless for eighty-two years and so is usually unresponsive to inquiries. The identify might have a correct pronunciation, however we could also be totally incapable of figuring out what it’s.
After all, this is not essentially an issue. Once more: we have now some affordable perception into the right pronunciation of the identify “Tyrannosaurus” although Henry Fairfield Osborn, who coined the identify, has been lifeless for eighty-three years. By causal-historical requirements, we will be moderately certain in regards to the pronunciation as a result of present pronunciation (possible) has its origin in Osborn’s personal speech acts. Equally, the name-giver for some taxon may write out a pronunciation key in a ebook that I learn a number of years later, thus giving me perception into the right pronunciation. All {that a} causal-historical account would require for correct pronunciation is that my speech act could be one way or the other influenced by the name-giver’s supposed pronunciation.
Sadly, examples like these are comparatively unusual. For each identify like “Tyrannosaurus,” whose pronunciation has been propagated by repeated imitation of the name-giver’s authentic speech acts, there are dozens extra names like “Agathaumas“: coined, written and not using a pronunciation key, and barely (if ever) spoken aloud besides in best-guess makes an attempt. What good is a principle that provides us correct pronunciations for names, however retains most of these correct pronunciations opaque?
If we will not seek the advice of the name-givers, then possibly our greatest hope is to contemplate the the names themselves.
The origin of species (names)
The Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology requires that every one new taxon names be accompanied by an outline of the brand new identify’s etymology. Per the Worldwide Code of Zoological Nomenclature, names could also be rejected if their etymology is inappropriate or insufficiently justified. A reputation’s linguistic origin due to this fact makes a distinction within the software of that identify to a taxon.
However is etymology related to the identify’s pronunciation? Hopefully not. Traditionally, most taxon names have been derived from phrases in lifeless or considerably altered languages. “Parasaurolophus” is derived from three roots in Historic Greek: “para” (which means “close to” or “shut”), “sauros” (which means “lizard” or “reptile”) and “lophos” (which means “crest”). (Truly, “Parasaurolophus” solely has two roots: the Historic Greek phrase “para” and the genus identify “Saurolophus.” That is admittedly hair-splitting and it is not like philosophers are recognized for that kind of factor.) If the roots look simple sufficient to pronounce, keep in mind that these are latinized transcriptions of the phrases πᾰρᾰ́, σαῦρος, and λόφος, none of which beg to roll off the fashionable tongue.
It has been a really very long time since Historic Greek was final spoken as a standard language, and so the perfect that fashionable audio system can do is attempt to approximate the language’s authentic speech acts. Since fashionable pronunciation has been altered by a wide range of historic factors–immigration, emigration, cultural transmission, and so forth.–there are a number of candidate techniques for the language that might function the pronunciation commonplace for the taxon identify in query. The state of affairs is comparable for Latin: phrases in Prescriptivist or Classical Latin (which consists of the “right” pronunciation of phrases and used primarily by students and orators) have their pronunciations reconstructed from derived Romance languages (primarily Italian), and the pronunciation of Vulgar Latin (utilized by the typical Roman) has been misplaced fully. Since most taxon names have roots in Historic Greek or Latin, an etymological commonplace of pronunciation would not be any much less opaque than a causal-historical commonplace.
Extra just lately, paleontologists have made extra of an effort to provide fossil taxa names that mirror native languages. The aforementioned primate taxon “Ekgmowechashala,” for instance, has its identify’s roots in Sioux terminology for “little cat man.” With no pronunciation key a majority of audio system may need to guess at correct pronunciation in these circumstances, however that would not depend towards the chance that linguistic requirements of the native language may decide pronunciation. The truth is, these are circumstances whereby etymological information might be much more helpful than a name-giver’s pronunciation key. For the reason that name-giver might not be a local speaker of the foundation language, deference to speech acts within the root language could be acceptable.
However, we have now some good causes to doubt that etymology determines pronunciation. To begin with, take into account once more “Tyrannosaurus,” derived from the Historic Greek roots τύραννος (“turannos”) and σαῦρος (“sauros”). We might not know the way the roots have been pronounced, however (as I’ve stated earlier than) we are able to moderately sure tips on how to pronounce the taxon identify. Second, even in these circumstances whereby etymology appears to be authoritative–“Ekgmowechashala,” for example–deference to the foundation language is mediated by the name-giver’s intent. One of the best circumstances for an etymological account due to this fact stay in line with the causal-historical account.
Conclusion
Possibly taxon names haven’t got right pronunciations, however the perfect relativist account does a poor job explaining how scientific names will be standardized between linguistic communities. Possibly taxon names do have right pronunciations, however of the value to pay for saying so is skepticism about what the proper pronunciation may be–regardless of which of the 2 related accounts we select.
Of the account that we have thought-about, the causal-historical one strikes me because the strongest. It explains the standardization of taxon identify pronunciation higher than linguistic descriptivism does and would account for a wider vary of pronunciations than the etymological account. Skepticism stands out as the value we pay, however that is foreign money that scientists ought to be snug carrying anyway.
The worth can be prevented. Simply as JVP requires name-givers to elucidate a reputation’s etymology, so can also scientific journals require that pronunciation keys be given with new taxon names. Use of the Worldwide Phonetic Alphabet would assist scientists to keep away from resorting to the Eurocentric phonetic transcriptions that I’ve given above, thus enhancing the standardization and effectivity of scientific terminology.
It is a small change that might yield vital returns. Not least of all, I would have the ability to relaxation simpler: not solely would I’ve a good suggestion how Parasaurolophus sounded, I would additionally lastly know the way “Parasaurolophus” sounds. (That is a bit of use/point out joke for all of the philosophers of language who’ve most likely felt uncared for till now.)