Talk:tyrannosaurus
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
"tyrannosauri"?[edit]
Why would a Greek word use a Latin plural form? 83.250.168.127 16:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Because not all English speakers may think that way. —CodeCat 16:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- I think it's a Latinised form anyway: if it had come directly from Greek to English, it would end in -os, not -us. Equinox ◑ 19:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- The usual Ancient Greek word for “lizard“ is saura, for which the plural is saurai, but the -os form (with plural -oi) is also attested. Anyway, no doubt that it’s latinized in the names of dinosaur genera; I believe that’s the case for all Linnaean taxonomic terms, regardless of the language from which the word-stems are derived.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature specifically states that all the names it has authority over are to be treated as Latin- even ones that are based on arbitrary combinations of letters. I seem to remember seeing botanical names with Greek -os endings, though. At any rate, taxonomic names aren't inflected except in their formation (a specific epithet might be formed from the genitive plural, as in "*tyrannosaurorum", or the nominative
singularplural in apposition), so there's no taxonomically-correct plural of Tyrannosaurus in an English sentence. I would consider Tyrannosauri to be hypercorrection for Tyrannosauruses- but my judgment means nothing compared to usage by any significant body of English speakers. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)- I’m just fine with “tyrannosauruses“ myself; I feel it‘s always legitimate to use English inflections on borrowings, even though my own usage tends to prefer the classical ones. I think many find the double sibilant a deterrent from saying “tyrannosauruses”, likewise “Charles’s”, “octopuses“, “viruses”, … the last two often being replaced by un-etymological dog-Latin.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature specifically states that all the names it has authority over are to be treated as Latin- even ones that are based on arbitrary combinations of letters. I seem to remember seeing botanical names with Greek -os endings, though. At any rate, taxonomic names aren't inflected except in their formation (a specific epithet might be formed from the genitive plural, as in "*tyrannosaurorum", or the nominative
- The usual Ancient Greek word for “lizard“ is saura, for which the plural is saurai, but the -os form (with plural -oi) is also attested. Anyway, no doubt that it’s latinized in the names of dinosaur genera; I believe that’s the case for all Linnaean taxonomic terms, regardless of the language from which the word-stems are derived.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- It wouldn't; this is wrong. The illustration is also likely not accurate. Current evidence shows that tyrannosaurus either had no feathers or very few. 108.4.220.66 02:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)