----- Original Message -----
From: "Marco Oliverio" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 3:50 PM
Subject: Re: De Jong & Coomans


> At 14.30 09/01/2004 +0100, you wrote:
> >the same article, however, states "Incorrect...latinization ... [is] not
> >to be considered [an] inadvertent error". I think using the wrong latin
> >suffix falls under this provision.
>

> My personal opinion is that ... no, "using the wrong latin suffix" DOES
NOT
> "fall under this provision."
> Latinization concerns the "creation" of a word that does not exist (or did
> not exist) in Latin by making the root of the new word from the root of
the
> non-Latin one.

But Marco, "deman" did/does not exist in Latin and it IS the root of demani,
which IS a Latin word (and the specific epithet of a nominal species)!

Marien

> The new word has a root that is the result of the Latinization, and its
> usage is ruled by the Latin Grammar. Thus, the endings to use for the
> plural genitive are not a matter of Latinization.

If I understand you correctly, you hold the opinion that there are/should be
two steps: 1) Latinization, and 2, using proper Latin grammar. But then what
about the following.
Some names are first Latinized, sensu Oliverio, indeed: for instance, Reeve
becomes Reevius and then properly turned into, say, Conus reevii.
But some are not. Reeve remains Reeve and then we have, say, Larus reevei.
If you are right, then the latter variety, and the commonest, is not
Latinez, thus always wrong!
Fortunately, the ICZN code does not support this more complicated line of
thinking.

Any "inadvertent error"
> in their use is simply corrected by a mandatory justified emendation.
>

There is nothing inadvertent in "demani" either. Kees de Jong, who I knew
well, wanted the name this way. But this does not rally matter (he as well
could have regarded it as an arbitrary combination of letters to honour Mr
and Mrs De Man).

Marien