Learning Center What is a mineral?The most common minerals on earth Information for Educators Mindat Articles The Elements The Rock H. Currier Digital Library Geologic Time

Minerals by Properties Minerals by Chemistry Advanced Locality Search Random Mineral Random Locality Search by minID Localities Near Me Search Articles Search Glossary More Search Options

The Mindat Manual Add a New Photo Rate Photos Locality Edit Report Coordinate Completion Report Add Glossary Item

Mining Companies Statistics Users Mineral Museums Clubs & Organizations Mineral Shows & Events The Mindat Directory Device Settings The Mineral Quiz

Photo Search Photo Galleries Search by Color New Photos Today New Photos Yesterday Members' Photo Galleries Past Photo of the Day Gallery Photography

Discussions

💬 Home 🔎 Search 📅 Latest

╳Discussions

💬 Home 🔎 Search 📅 Latest

Groups

Recent Images in Discussions

Mineralogical ClassificationHauyne: errata corrige suggestion

1st Mar 2006 10:28 UTCMarco E. Ciriotti Manager

Thank to the courtesy of Christof Schaefer, I received, now, the original Bruun-Neergard paper with the type-description of hauyne.

Effectively the probed mineral first described as hauyne (without diacritical sign) by Bruun-Neergard is for a specimen from Nemi, Alban Hills, Roma, Lazio, Italy.

In the next version of "Italian Type Minerals" surely we'll correct the inexactness.

So there are two questions about hauyne:

1. the correct type locality is not Vesuvius volcanic complex, but Nemi Lake, Alban Hills, Rome, Lazio (Latium), Italy;

2. the name of the mineral was first write by Bruun-Neergard without diacritical sign on the "u". So, I think, the correct name of the mineral should be hauyne and not haÃ¼yne.

The references are:

â–ª Bruun-Neergard, T.C. (1807): Ueber den Hauyn (la Hauyne), eine neue mineralische Substanz. Journal des Mines, 21, 365-380.

â–ª Bruun-Neergard, T.C. (1807): Ueber den Hauyn (la Hauyne), eine neue mineralische Substanz. Journal of Chemical Physics, 4, 417-429.

Many thanks Christof!

1st Mar 2006 11:02 UTCDavid Von Bargen Manager

I am guessing that the name Hauy was used somewhere in the text. Does it have the diacritical mark there? Hauy did use the diacritical mark in his signatures and publications. I would hate to change it if the printer ran out of umlauted u's.

1st Mar 2006 12:34 UTCMarco E. Ciriotti Manager

In French language Haüy is, of course, with dyeresis and this is the correct French form (without dyeresis the French pronounce changes in "oui = yes"), but Bruun-Neergard in the referred text never use the dyeresis (diacritical sign on the "u").

1st Mar 2006 15:32 UTCPeter Haas

It all depends on how the particular letter combination 'a-u-y' is pronounced in different languages. What we have here is not a spelling problem, but one of phonetic transscription. The name "Hauy" is correctly pronounced by separately speaking the vowels 'a' and 'u'. However, the german "au" is differently pronounced than the french "au" (the german "au" sounds a bit like the "ou" in "house", the french "au" is better compared to the "o" in "home"). In order to indicate that two succeeding vowels must not be combined to a single sound, a so-called diaeresis - indicated by two dots - is put above the second vowel. German is an almost phonetic language and French is largely phonetic, too. That is, a letter - or a particular combinations of letters - is always pronounced in the same manner, if not otherwise indicated. In French, therefore, the spelling has to be "HaÃ¼y" (with diaeresis). In German, it is "Hauy" (without a diaeresis - that's the simple reason why Bruun-Neergard didn't use it).

English is not phonetic at all: in general, one always learns the sound of a word along with its meaning. In this case, it doesn't really matter whether a diaeresis is used or not.

1st Mar 2006 15:47 UTCAlfredo Petrov Manager

If a mineral is named after a person, wouldn't it be reasonable to spell it the way the person in question spelled his own name? How did Hauy write his name himself? (presumably with the dyeresis, since he was French?)

1st Mar 2006 15:50 UTCMarco E. Ciriotti Manager

Hi Peter,

I well know that spelling is not influent, but...

As I know, the name of a mineral species (grandfathered or not) is the name that is wrote in the first (type) description of the species.

So, in my knowledge, in this case, it is not a problem of the language in which the description was made, but the question is that the name was wrote (the mineral was named by Bruun-Neergard) without diaeresis.

This is the reason of the suggested different writing of the mineral name: hauyne.

Ciao. Marco

1st Mar 2006 15:57 UTCDavid Von Bargen Manager

Yes, but we also translate the names back into english. Common useage also plays a role in this (ie goethite).

1st Mar 2006 16:17 UTCPeter Haas

"... the name of a mineral species (grandfathered or not) is the name that is wrote in the first (type) description of the species."

The question we should ask us is, how strictly this rule applies. There would be harsh consequences for names transscribed from non-latin alphabets ...

1st Mar 2006 16:42 UTCMarco E. Ciriotti Manager

The rule "the name of a mineral species (grandfathered or not) is the name that is wrote in the first (type) description of the species" is valid only for names that are not derived by persons, because in the other case there is another rule "the original spelling of the person's name should be retained".

So for haÃ¼yne the correct name is haÃ¼yne with dieresis.

But not ever the rule "the original spelling of the person's name should be retained" was respected.

There is a number of mineral names that are different from the original spelling of the persons...

1st Mar 2006 16:50 UTCDavid Von Bargen Manager

http://www.geo.vu.nl/users/ima-cnmmn/cnmmn98.pdf

There is another set of guidelines

Diacritical marks should be retained

wherever possible, but it is recognized that not all

printing establishments have the necessary facilities for

printing all types of diacritical marks; in such cases,

diacritical marks may be omitted.

1st Mar 2006 18:48 UTCJean-Marc Johannet Manager

"...The rule "the name of a mineral species (grandfathered or not) is the name that is wrote in the first (type) description of the species" is valid only for names that are not derived by persons,... "

I'm not sure of that if I believe EH. Nickel in the reference below:

"The spelling of a name relating to a geographical locality should conform to the spelling at the locality rather than a translation of the locality name. For example, the mineral boleite was named for the locality of Boleo in Mexico. However, the mineral name was originally published as bolÃ©ite in a French-language journal. According to CNMMN guidelines , the mineral should be spelled without the accent on 'e'. "

Ref:

Nickel E.H. (2003) - Mineralogical problems and the Comission on New Minerals and Minerals Names - Autralian Journal of Mineralogy, Vol 9, NÂ°1, pp 9-12

1st Mar 2006 19:48 UTCMarco E. Ciriotti Manager

The rule in naming minerals from localities is the following: "If the mineral is to be named after a geographical occurrence, care must be taken to ensure that the spelling conforms to that in use at the locality; the spelling should not be taken from translations".

So that what Ernie Nickel has written is correct also if the paper is not a "CNMMN document".

The rules "first name in the type description" is valid for the other names (not derived from persons and localities).

Mindat.org is an outreach project of the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy, a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization.
Copyright © mindat.org and the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy 1993-2024, except where stated. Most political location boundaries are © OpenStreetMap contributors. Mindat.org relies on the contributions of thousands of members and supporters. Founded in 2000 by Jolyon Ralph.
Privacy Policy - Terms & Conditions - Contact Us / DMCA issues - Report a bug/vulnerability Current server date and time: April 19, 2024 10:54:39

Go to top of page