"Sacha" wrote in message
. uk...
On 25/2/07 15:38, in article ,
"Alan Holmes" wrote:
"Sacha" wrote in message
. uk...
On 25/2/07 10:03, in article lid, "Stewart
Robert
Hinsley" wrote:
In message , BoyPete
writes
snip
Yes, I understand that now. Still, it's very off-putting to the likes
of
me
to see all that Latin in a post, and I tend to skip them.....possibly
missing some useful info.
Botanical names are no harder, in principle, to cope with than
vernacular names. All you have to do is not let them intimidate you.
I'm guessing that for some people it's to do with pronunciation, too.
But
if you break it down into chewable syllables, it's much easier. And as
to
the *correct* way to pronounce things I wouldn't even begin to consider
that
as off putting because there seem to be as many variations in that field
as
there are plants to learn about. It's the old CLEMatis opposed to
CleMAYtis
thing and doesn't matter a jot, IMO, except as a bit of fun to argue
about.
;-)
A bit like the presant pronunsiation of Beaconsfield, which is a place
where
they had a beacon, but the 'posh' people call it beckons-field as in
someone
trying to get your attention, but I always refer to it as a place where
there was a beacon!
Ray, who is an Essex man, says much the same about people pronouncing
Theydon Bois with 'bois' as in French, whereas the locals calls it Theydon
Boys!
--
It amuses me the way the toffs pronounce Aldeburgh. The locals pronounce it
"Ollbruh".
Regarding the latin botanical names, you should hear some of the distortions
in pronunciation that USian academics come up with. I've been to science
conferences where the USians distort one way, the Brits another and the
Europeans yet another (the latter being close to correct, of course).
Graham