Proposal to ‘restore’ indigenous names misunderstands the complementary nature of botanical nomenclature and indigenous vernacular plant names

Author(s):  
Matt S. McGlone ◽  
Peter B. Heenan ◽  
Aaron D. Wilton ◽  
Atholl Anderson
Diacronia ◽  
2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oana Zamfirescu

This article aims to investigate the status of folk botanical nomenclature from the perspective of the lexematic theory, a theory developed by Eugeniu Coseriu. The linguist believes that terminologies (folk and scientific) represent objective and conventional classifications that fall under the order of reality. They are a part of the non-structured lexis and not a part of the structured one. The features that situate this nomenclature in the non-structured lexis and ones that situate it in the structured lexis are established on the basis of the material made available by various sources (dictionaries, encyclopædias, different works containing plant names form our country). After the consultation of the sources, the conclusion is that folk plant names are situated at the border line between common language and scientific terminology.


Author(s):  
Volodymyr Mezhenskyj

Aim. The aim of this article is to analyze the current state of plant nomenclature in agricultural practice. Methods. The analysis of literary sources, mathematical analysis. Results. In the titles of 1760 analyzed dissertations for the scientific degrees in agricultural sciences (2000–2019), 90.3% of the plant names are presented in Ukrainian, 5.6% are a combination of Ukrainian and Latin names, and 4.1% are in Latin. In the titles of 680 dissertations for the scientific degrees in biological sciences, the main part is made up of the Latin names of taxa of a generic and species rank and below — 45.2%, names in Ukrainian are 35.1%, and combinations of Ukrainian and Latin names are 19.7%. Despite the fact that the same groups of organisms are studied in both groups agricultural and biological, there are significant differences in the use of names. The scientific style of the Ukrainian language is inherent in the direct word order when the adjective precedes the noun. This is how crop names were coined: miaka pshenytsia (common wheat), tverda pshenytsia (durum wheat), ozyma pshenytsia (winter wheat), yara pshenytsia (spring wheat), tsukrovi buriaky (sugar beet), etc., while in the names of botanical taxa the word order is opposite: pshenytsia miaka (common wheat), pshenytsia tverda (durum wheat), buriak zvychainyi (beet), etc. In the last quarter of the twentieth century, unmotivated inversion occurred in the catalogues of zoned cultivars of agricultural crops, when the word order in the crop names changed to the opposite. In the International Convention for the Protection of Rights of New Varieties of Plants, the term variety is associated with the term taxon, and not agricultural crop. Therefore, the concepts of agricultural crop and botanical taxon that are not identical are confused in the State Register of Plant Varieties of Ukraine. Agrarians have been in a state of ambiguity and uncertainty regarding the proper use of plant names. The attempts to assimilate the agrobiological nomenclature to the botanical one led to an unreasonable replacement of the names of cultons, which acquired a chaotic and mass character. At the beginning of the 20th century, in the vast majority of dissertations in the agricultural field, the spelling of the names of traditional crops corresponded to the scientific style, but gradually it changed and now in most dissertations the reverse word order dominates, mistakenly identifying the crop names with specific names. At the same time, in biological dissertation, the names of both cultons and taxa correspond to the scientific style. Conclusions. The titles of many dissertations for the scientific degrees in Agricultural and Biological Sciences use Ukrainian and Latin names of plants. Latin names are regulated by the ICN, but the Ukrainian ones belong to two unregulated terminological systems. The first botanical system reflects the scientific botanical nomenclature and manages the names of taxon, the second agrobiological system is based on the names of cultons. Generic names and crop names often coincide, while species names and crop names differ in word order. In the verbose crop names, the word order is direct with the adjective precedes the noun, in the species names the word order is reversed, a generic name followed by a specific epithet. The phenomenon of replacing crop names with names inheriting the species names has become rampant over the past twenty years. They destroy the system of agrobiological nomenclature and contradict the scientific standards of the literary Ukrainian language. The identification of this negative phenomenon will allow us to overcome it faster.


2007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roger Spencer ◽  
Rob Cross ◽  
Peter Lumley

Plant Names is a plain English guide to the use of plant names and the conventions for writing them as governed by the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature and the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants. It covers the naming of wild plants, plants modified by humans, why plant names change, their pronunciation and hints to help remember them. The final section provides a detailed guide to web sites and published resources useful to people using plant names. The book incorporates the latest information in the most recently published Botanical and Cultivated Plant Codes, both of which are technical scientific publications that are difficult to read for all but the most dedicated botanists and horticulturists. From botanists to publishers, professional horticulturists, nurserymen, hobby gardeners and anyone interested in plant names, this book is an invaluable guide to using the potentially confusing array of scientific, commercial and common names.


Planta Medica ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 81 (16) ◽  
Author(s):  
EA Dauncey ◽  
J Irving ◽  
N Black ◽  
SE Edwards ◽  
K Patmore ◽  
...  

2006 ◽  
Vol 61 (4) ◽  
pp. 657-658
Author(s):  
Csaba Pléh

Arisztotelész: Lélekfilozófiai írások. (Fordította: Steiger Kornél) Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, 2006 David Hume: Értekezés az emberi természetről . (Fordította: Bence György) Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, 2006 Kelso, J. A. Scott és Engstrøm, David A.: The complementary nature. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2006 Fehér Márta, Zemplén Gábor és Binzberger Viktor (szerk.): Értelem és történelem. L'Harmattan, Budapest, 2006 Márkus Attila: Neurológia. Pszichológia szakos hallgatók számára. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, 2006 Cayton, H., Graham, N. és Warner, J.: Alzheimer-kór és a demencia egyéb fajtái . (Fordította: Nikowitz Krisztina) SpringMed Kiadó, Budapest, 2006 Houdé, Olivier: 10 leçons de psychologie et pédagogie . Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, 2006 Velicskovszkij, Borisz M.: Kognyityivnaja nauka. Osznovi pszichologii poznanyija . Vol. I-II.Academa-Szmüszl. Moszkva, 2006 Fábri György (szerk.): A tudománykommunikáció értelme/értéke. Tudástársadalom Alapítvány, Budapest, 2006 Ropolyi László: Az Internet természete. Internetfilozófiai értekezés. Typotex, Budapest, 2006


2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 75
Author(s):  
P. Lakshminarasimhan ◽  
N. Odyuo ◽  
Chaya Deori ◽  
Deepu Vijayan ◽  
David L. Biate ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 138 (2) ◽  
pp. 213-233
Author(s):  
Claudio Cataldi

AbstractThe present study provides a full edition and commentary of the three glossaries in Oxford, Bodleian Library, Barlow 35, fol. 57r–v. These glossaries, which were first partly edited and discussed by Liebermann (1894), are comprised of excerpts from Ælfric’s Grammar and Glossary arranged by subject. The selection of material from the two Ælfrician works witnesses to the interests of the glossator. The first glossary in Barlow 35 collects Latin grammatical terms and verbs followed by their Old English equivalents. The second glossary is drawn from the chapter on plant names of Ælfric’s Glossary, with interpolations from other chapters of the same work. This glossary also features twelfth-century interlinear notations, which seem to have a metatextual function. The third glossary combines excerpts from Ælfric’s Glossary with verbs derived from the Grammar. Liebermann transcribed only part of the glosses and gave a brief commentary on the glossaries as well as parallels with Zupitza’s (1880) edition of Ælfric’s Grammar and Glossary; hence the need for a new edition, which is provided in the present study, along with a comprehensive discussion of the glossaries and a reassessment of the correspondences concerning their Ælfrician sources.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document