"Janet Tweedy" wrote in message
...
In article , Sacha
writes

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!


Living near 'Bekonsfield' I gave up years ago saying it as though a beacon


I still do, nut then I'm an awkward beggar, I shall never, ever call the
place anything but beacons-field!(:-)

We also have Chesham Bois and as Sacha says everyone pronounces it Boys!

I do that too!

However there's going to be a Time team programme on Bois House in the
next month and maybe we'll learn what we should call it from that!

Let us know the result.

Alan

On 28/2/07 18:14, in article ,
"Martin" wrote:

On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 14:11:55 +0000, Sacha
wrote:

On 28/2/07 11:29, in article , "Janet Tweedy"
wrote:
snip


Living near 'Bekonsfield' I gave up years ago saying it as though a
beacon
We also have Chesham Bois and as Sacha says everyone pronounces it Boys!
However there's going to be a Time team programme on Bois House in the
next month and maybe we'll learn what we should call it from that!

I think there's no doubt it was once pronounced in the French fashion but,
like many place names and surnames has become anglicised over time. I
nearly said *******ised but... ;-) I committed a huge social solecism by
pronouncing Belvoir Castle in the French fashion to someone associated with
the place - coming from the CIs how was I to know it's pronounced Beevor?!

Similar problem with Beaulieu.

Oh YES. I'd forgotten that one.

--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/
(remove weeds from address)

On 28/2/07 18:15, in article ,
"Martin" wrote:

On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 14:44:23 +0000, Sacha
wrote:

On 28/2/07 14:19, in article
, "Dave Poole"
wrote:

Janet Tweedy wrote:

Living near 'Bekonsfield' I gave up years ago saying it as though a
beacon
We also have Chesham Bois and as Sacha says everyone pronounces it Boys!
However there's going to be a Time team programme on Bois House in the
next month and maybe we'll learn what we should call it from that!

Depending upon who you talk to, St Austell in Cornwall, is Snozzle,
Sun-Ozzle or Sane-Ossle. I play safe and say "Sun-Ostel" and it's
never caused a raised eyebrow. Likewise Launceston, which seems to
divide its time between being Laansten and Lawnston. Not being
related to or well-acquainted with Denzil Penworthy, I'm never quite
sure what to say.

There's a bit of a division here in Devon as well. Totnes is
variously Totnus (said quickly with no emphasis) or more commonly Tot-
Ness. I'm assured by a pal who is from an old Tonesian family that
Totnus is used by true local and that Tot-Ness is used by outsiders.

And then there's Dittisham (Ditsum) and Topsham (Topsum).

and Bussom ( Bosham)

Really? I had friends who lived there for a few years - lovely place - and
they pronounced it Bozzom. Do you know the Ancre Bleu? ;-))

--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/
(remove weeds from address)

"graham" wrote in
news:AxhFh.1171824$5R2.535205@pd7urf3no:


"Tom Gardner" wrote in message
43.53...
Sacha wrote in
. uk:

On 28/2/07 14:19, in article
, "Dave Poole"
wrote:

Janet Tweedy wrote:

Living near 'Bekonsfield' I gave up years ago saying it as though a
beacon
We also have Chesham Bois and as Sacha says everyone pronounces it
Boys! However there's going to be a Time team programme on Bois
House in the next month and maybe we'll learn what we should call it
from that!

Depending upon who you talk to, St Austell in Cornwall, is Snozzle,
Sun-Ozzle or Sane-Ossle. I play safe and say "Sun-Ostel" and it's
never caused a raised eyebrow. Likewise Launceston, which seems to
divide its time between being Laansten and Lawnston. Not being
related to or well-acquainted with Denzil Penworthy, I'm never quite
sure what to say.

There's a bit of a division here in Devon as well. Totnes is
variously Totnus (said quickly with no emphasis) or more commonly
Tot- Ness. I'm assured by a pal who is from an old Tonesian family
that Totnus is used by true local and that Tot-Ness is used by
outsiders.

And then there's Dittisham (Ditsum) and Topsham (Topsum).

Near Brissle/Bristol there is Almsbury/Almondsbury,
Coongsbury/Congresbury, Gloster/Gloucester,
Sissiter/Cirencester. And that's without straying
"over the bridge".

Further afield, Annick/Alnwick is a traditional pitfall,
and there's also Lester/Leicester (etc), of course.

How does one pronounce Nempnett Thrubwell, a village S of Bristol)?

AFAIK, as it is spelt! Its a very boring place, albeit
in a pretty valley. You can get "I -heart- Nempnett
Thrubwell" T-Shirts in Brigstowe shoppes.

"Tom Gardner" wrote in message
43.53...
"graham" wrote in
news:AxhFh.1171824$5R2.535205@pd7urf3no:


"Tom Gardner" wrote in message
43.53...
Sacha wrote in
. uk:

On 28/2/07 14:19, in article
, "Dave Poole"
wrote:

Janet Tweedy wrote:

Living near 'Bekonsfield' I gave up years ago saying it as though a
beacon
We also have Chesham Bois and as Sacha says everyone pronounces it
Boys! However there's going to be a Time team programme on Bois
House in the next month and maybe we'll learn what we should call it
from that!

Depending upon who you talk to, St Austell in Cornwall, is Snozzle,
Sun-Ozzle or Sane-Ossle. I play safe and say "Sun-Ostel" and it's
never caused a raised eyebrow. Likewise Launceston, which seems to
divide its time between being Laansten and Lawnston. Not being
related to or well-acquainted with Denzil Penworthy, I'm never quite
sure what to say.

There's a bit of a division here in Devon as well. Totnes is
variously Totnus (said quickly with no emphasis) or more commonly
Tot- Ness. I'm assured by a pal who is from an old Tonesian family
that Totnus is used by true local and that Tot-Ness is used by
outsiders.

And then there's Dittisham (Ditsum) and Topsham (Topsum).

Near Brissle/Bristol there is Almsbury/Almondsbury,
Coongsbury/Congresbury, Gloster/Gloucester,
Sissiter/Cirencester. And that's without straying
"over the bridge".

Further afield, Annick/Alnwick is a traditional pitfall,
and there's also Lester/Leicester (etc), of course.

How does one pronounce Nempnett Thrubwell, a village S of Bristol)?

AFAIK, as it is spelt! Its a very boring place, albeit
in a pretty valley. You can get "I -heart- Nempnett
Thrubwell" T-Shirts in Brigstowe shoppes.

The name always intrigued me but I never visited the village. I just saw
the signposts on my way to Burrington Combe for some geological fieldwork.
Graham

Rob Hamadi writes
On Feb 25, 1:29 pm, Stewart Robert Hinsley
wrote:
In message .com, Rob
Hamadi writes

So Rosaceae (the family) is distinct from Rosa (the genus)? I live and
learn. Would I be correct in saying that Rosa is a subset of Rosaceae?
--

Yes. The genus Rosa is part or all [1] of the tribe Roseae which is part
of subfamily Rosoideae which is part of family Rosaceae.Rob

[1] It seems to be a matter of taste among botanists as to whether to
break off a few fragments of Rosa as separate genera or not.

Thanks. It seems to me from what you've explained that it's just* a
matter of learning the "grammar" of the classification system, then
expanding one's vocabulary. The fact that many of the words are Latin
is, to some extent, a red herring.

Speaking as an amateur, start by learning about families and genera.
It's made easier by families being given names ending with 'aceae' - so
Rosa is the genus, Rosaceae the family (which includes other genera such
as Malus (apples), Pyrus (pears), Sorbus - rowans and whitebeams)

Carrots, parsnips, fennel, dill, parsley are all in the umbellifer
family, which appears now to be called Apiaceae. Many of our other herbs
- mint, marjoram, oregano, savory - are Lamiaceae, named after the genus
Lamium which includes the silver leaved dead nettle used as a ground
cover in gardens.

The system is based on the flowers, since they are the bit that enables
sexual reproduction and therefore govern the ancestral 'tree' of the
plant in question. It's encouraged me to look closer at plants - for
example finding that Cyclamen is in the primrose family and seeing that
there is a real similarity in their flower structure. Conversely, it's
made plant identification so much easier. With wild plants it's
relatively easy to look at a plant and know immediately which family it
belongs to. A bit more difficult with garden plants, as we grow the odd
representative of a great many families which aren't necessarily
represented among the wild UK plants, but it's still a whole lot easier
than leafing through an encyclopaedia of garden plants looking at all
the white flowers ...


--
Kay

Stewart Robert Hinsley writes
In message , BoyPete
writes

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.

And learn some of the meanings - not too hard for us english since so
many english words are derived from lain roots. A lot of plants are
given descriptive names - eg maculatum = marked or spotted, striatum =
striped, alba = white, sylvatica = living in woods
--
Kay

In message , K
writes
The system is based on the flowers, since they are the bit that enables
sexual reproduction and therefore govern the ancestral 'tree' of the
plant in question.

Actually the classification is ideally based on "total evidence",
whether flower and fruit morphology, or vegetative morphology, or pollen
morphology, or ctyology, or biochemistry, or DNA sequences. Flower and
fruit morphology does however usually offer a better guide to
relationships that other easily examined characters.

(Note that the system also applies to non-flowering plants like mosses,
ferns and conifers. A similar system, growing from the same root,
applies to animals.)

Back in the 18th century Linnaeus ("The Father of Botany") introduced
both the binomial naming scheme which is the root of the modern
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN), and an artificial
(i.e. not based on relationships) classification based on the numbers of
stamens and pistils. He also produced an outline of a natural (one based
on relationships, as far as he could deduce) classification
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

In article ,
K writes:
|
| Speaking as an amateur, start by learning about families and genera.
| It's made easier by families being given names ending with 'aceae' - so
| Rosa is the genus, Rosaceae the family (which includes other genera such
| as Malus (apples), Pyrus (pears), Sorbus - rowans and whitebeams)
|
| Carrots, parsnips, fennel, dill, parsley are all in the umbellifer
| family, which appears now to be called Apiaceae. Many of our other herbs
| - mint, marjoram, oregano, savory - are Lamiaceae, named after the genus
| Lamium which includes the silver leaved dead nettle used as a ground
| cover in gardens.

Unfortunately, quite a lot of the family names have been created by the
rabid renamers - Apiaceae and Lamiaceae are two - and many/most books
use the old names (try Umbelliferae and Labiatae). There didn't seem
to be any reason for that except dogma, and the old names were often
usefully descriptive (as in those cases). What is more, the old rules
still seem to be valid, unlike for genera and species, so you have to
learn two schemes :-(

If I recall, some family names have changed half a dozen times, as the
rigid application of the rules dictated, but I don't think that many
of those have impacted most gardeners. Except for the Leguminosae
(a.k.a. Fabaceae a.k.a. Papilionaceae a.k.a. Caesalpiniaceae?), which
I have seen cause considerable confusion.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article ,
K writes:
| Stewart Robert Hinsley writes
| In message , BoyPete
| writes
|
| 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.
|
| And learn some of the meanings - not too hard for us english since so
| many english words are derived from lain roots. A lot of plants are
| given descriptive names - eg maculatum = marked or spotted, striatum =
| striped, alba = white, sylvatica = living in woods

But don't trust them too far - and ESPECIALLY never trust ones that
indicate a geographic origin. They are more reliable than English
names, but not wholly reliable, and ones that imply a location are
misleading as often as not.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article ,
Stewart Robert Hinsley writes:
|
| Back in the 18th century Linnaeus ("The Father of Botany") introduced
| both the binomial naming scheme which is the root of the modern
| International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN), and an artificial
| (i.e. not based on relationships) classification based on the numbers of
| stamens and pistils. He also produced an outline of a natural (one based
| on relationships, as far as he could deduce) classification

Which was and is quite incredible, being largely valid today.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In message , Nick Maclaren
writes

In article ,
K writes:
| Stewart Robert Hinsley writes
| In message , BoyPete
| writes
|
| 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.
|
| And learn some of the meanings - not too hard for us english since so
| many english words are derived from lain roots. A lot of plants are
| given descriptive names - eg maculatum = marked or spotted, striatum =
| striped, alba = white, sylvatica = living in woods

But don't trust them too far - and ESPECIALLY never trust ones that
indicate a geographic origin. They are more reliable than English
names, but not wholly reliable, and ones that imply a location are
misleading as often as not.

For example, I'm told that the Cuban Lily, Scilla peruviana, is a
Mediterranean plant.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

In article ,
K writes:
|
| Speaking as an amateur, start by learning about families and genera.
| It's made easier by families being given names ending with 'aceae' - so
| Rosa is the genus, Rosaceae the family (which includes other genera
such
| as Malus (apples), Pyrus (pears), Sorbus - rowans and whitebeams)
|
| Carrots, parsnips, fennel, dill, parsley are all in the umbellifer
| family, which appears now to be called Apiaceae. Many of our other
herbs
| - mint, marjoram, oregano, savory - are Lamiaceae, named after the
genus
| Lamium which includes the silver leaved dead nettle used as a ground
| cover in gardens.

Unfortunately, quite a lot of the family names have been created by the
rabid renamers - Apiaceae and Lamiaceae are two - and many/most books
use the old names (try Umbelliferae and Labiatae). There didn't seem
to be any reason for that except dogma, and the old names were often
usefully descriptive (as in those cases).

You can get a fright if you open a "modern" text book alright and see a load
of family names that look kind of familiar and recognisable (like Poaceae
and Lamiaceae like you mention above or Papilionaceae like below) but it
does seem like endless tinkering. It makes me feel like a grumpy old man
and I am only 47.
Taxonomists claim that nomenclature is important (which it is) to help
organise knowledge but it becomes self defeating if it remains permanently
unstable. Users (e.g. gardeners or field botanists) become cynical and
start saying things like:
"x belongs to the yaceae, for this week at any rate"
or
"anyone know what family z belongs to this week?"
As for cladists of different religious hues and their interminable wars, I
am reminded of Swift and the war between the bigendians and littlendians.
Making perfect compost is simple in comparison.


What is more, the old rules
still seem to be valid, unlike for genera and species, so you have to
learn two schemes :-(

If I recall, some family names have changed half a dozen times, as the
rigid application of the rules dictated, but I don't think that many
of those have impacted most gardeners. Except for the Leguminosae
(a.k.a. Fabaceae a.k.a. Papilionaceae a.k.a. Caesalpiniaceae?), which
I have seen cause considerable confusion.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Stewart Robert Hinsley writes:
|
| Back in the 18th century Linnaeus ("The Father of Botany") introduced
| both the binomial naming scheme which is the root of the modern
| International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN), and an artificial
| (i.e. not based on relationships) classification based on the numbers
of
| stamens and pistils. He also produced an outline of a natural (one
based
| on relationships, as far as he could deduce) classification

Which was and is quite incredible, being largely valid today.

I agree; it was some achievement.
It is hard to imagine doing it partly from scratch.
I stayed in a hotel in Uppsala overlooking his garden.

Des




Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On 4/3/07 14:34, in article lid, "Stewart Robert
Hinsley" wrote:

In message , K
writes
The system is based on the flowers, since they are the bit that enables
sexual reproduction and therefore govern the ancestral 'tree' of the
plant in question.

Actually the classification is ideally based on "total evidence",
whether flower and fruit morphology, or vegetative morphology, or pollen
morphology, or ctyology, or biochemistry, or DNA sequences. Flower and
fruit morphology does however usually offer a better guide to
relationships that other easily examined characters.

(Note that the system also applies to non-flowering plants like mosses,
ferns and conifers. A similar system, growing from the same root,
applies to animals.)

Back in the 18th century Linnaeus ("The Father of Botany") introduced
both the binomial naming scheme which is the root of the modern
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN), and an artificial
(i.e. not based on relationships) classification based on the numbers of
stamens and pistils. He also produced an outline of a natural (one based
on relationships, as far as he could deduce) classification

Very interesting but not easy for the beginner, IMO!

--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/
(remove weeds from address)