Jump to content
The Corroboree
sobriquet

Australian pronounciation of "PSILOCYBIN"

Recommended Posts

Hi all,

I've heard some American pronounciations of the word PSILOCYBIN and it appears that they pronounce it as:

SILL-O-SIGH-BN

whereas I've always known it as:

SIGH-LO-SIGH-BN

I guess there are other pronounciation possibilities but I believe the second is the correct one because the phoneme "PS" tends to preced the IGH (AYE) type pronounciation. For example in 'psychiatry' and I believe that PSI (the Greek letter) is actually pronounced SIGH and not SEE. I guess there are exceptions like 'psyllium' so its not clear cut.

Anyhow, how do y'all pronounce this word? I guess as long as your audience understands it is not that important but it would be good to hear your opinions.

Edited by sobriquet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say it the way i think it 'looks'. Like silo(big metal towery thing)-cyb(like cyber)-in(not out)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In spanish, Using english words, "psilocybin" is pronounced something like this:

see - law - thick(without final K) - been

psi - lo - cy - bin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i say sill-oh-SIGH-bin. sill-oh-SIGHbs. i also say 'fun guys'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In spanish, Using english words, "psilocybin" is pronounced something like this:

see - law - thick(without final K) - been

psi - lo - cy - bin

That's a new one !

I tend to speak it as sob's 2nd suggestion of SIGH when in the company of fellow ethno friends. But SILL is still cool, it's not as if you'll be discussing this stuff verbally with someone who might mistake words :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

let then mushrooms decide - and believe me they are harshly autonimous..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol, this topics seems to come up again and again :wink: .

Let's start with the mushroom genus itself. Ther eis only one correct way of pronouncing it because it follows strict latin and ancient greek rules. The correct way for the genus is:

see-LO-ce-bee

note that the intonation is on the LO, not the second last syllable as many would suggest. This is because cybe has it's roots in ancient greek and this changes the rules on open & closed syllables etc - see a previous thread on this.

This is about the only thing we can be sure about though as the rest of the related words do not have to follow the latin pronunciation.

For the alkaloid [as discussed above], there are two main school of thought.

1) european - non-english Europeans are quite happy to maintain a large degree of the latin root in their words and they also tend to pronounce each letter and syllable [more or less]. This means that many words sound very similar across a variety of languages and in most you can easily distinguish the latin root. This means that most europeans will favour

see-lo-SIGH-bin or see-lo-CY-bin [CY as in CYnical]. The latter being much like the spanish version mentioned above - which is also used in [at least] france, germany, holland. Many will even pronounce the leading 'p' to some degree.

2) american - americans don't see the point in latin and believe that the whole world should speak english [preferably their aberration of it]. As such they totally ignore botanical latin and bastardise it to some anglo-saxon trainwreck that totally defies the whole purpose of having an international language of science. Similarly they don't think much about the roots of a word and basically pronounce it with little or no regard for it's meaning, source or relationship. So really most american pronuncinations are only 'right' because unlike europeans they always 100% 'know' :rolleyes: how things should be pronounced, because there really is only one way - the american way.

This is how we end up with cappee instead off ca-A-pee, gu-a-RA-na instead of gua-ra-NA, and the thousands [if not millions] of erroneous botanical entries in american science lit.

Interestingly it was an american who however picked me up on my wrong pronunciation of Psilocybe. I had applies latin rules, but was told that these do not apply as its roots are in ancient greek. But then again, he speaks fluent latin and I mostly flunked it. Anyone who wants to argue the point please take it up with the mushroom king Paul Stamets :worship::P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So really most american pronuncinations are only 'right' because unlike europeans they always 100% 'know' rolleyes.gif how things should be pronounced, because there really is only one way - the american way.

hehehe....

Antother word that has some pronounciation troubles, even for spaniards.

OAXACA.

How should you pronounce it to a mexican understand you?.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So really most american pronuncinations are only 'right' because unlike europeans they always 100% 'know' :rolleyes: how things should be pronounced, because there really is only one way - the american way.

darn tootin'. finally, someone who gets it. :lol:

oaxaca is woh-HAH-ka for americans; or, speaking australian, war-HUH-ka. the middle syllable is short and fast despite emphasis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While we're on the topic, I have trouble with some of the plant families....for example: Aizoaceae, Fouquieriaceae, Lecythidaceae, Caesalpiniaceae, and Xanthorrhoeaceae.

And what about the 'o' and 'cyn' in Apocynaceae?

An old mate of mine made an arse of himself once by pronoucing the scientific name of the staghorn incorrectly....Platycerium superbum

heheh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sil-os-ob-ee

Paul Stamets says it this way.

No he doesn't.

Your syllables are all screwed up. He knows the origin of the words and preserves the syllables the way they should be. eg, the second word [third syllable] has to start with an 's' or 'c' sound as this is the beginning of the greek 'cube'. Also, if the second last syllable was a closed syllable [as you claim] then intonation would fall to the third syllable as fas as I remember.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While we're on the topic, I have trouble with some of the plant families....for example: Aizoaceae, Fouquieriaceae, Lecythidaceae, Caesalpiniaceae, and Xanthorrhoeaceae.

And what about the 'o' and 'cyn' in Apocynaceae?

An old mate of mine made an arse of himself once by pronoucing the scientific name of the staghorn incorrectly....Platycerium superbum

There is a famous orchid with species name superbum and I always call them super-bums just to annoy orchid growers :P

As for the families above, the problem is that most australians will use horticultural latin rather than botanical latin. Horticultural latin is usually heavily influenced by the local language, while botanical latin follows strict latin rules and is universally pretty much identical. But what if you are both? eg a botanist at the sydney botanic garden. he will have to make himself understood mostly to horticulturists and rarely to botanists. So, proper botanical latin is pretty rare. In fact, I have so far only met a single australian botanist who consistently applies it. I personally prefer botanical latin because I deal a lot with non english speaking enthusiasts and botanists. Below I cut some corners, eg the -eae ending, which is actually a two syllable ending in latin, but always pronounced as a single syllable in anglo saxon countries.

First botanical, then horticultural.

Aizoaceae = iee-so-A-see > ay-so-A-see

Fouquieriaceae = foo-ki-eri-AY-see > foo-ki-ri-AY-see

Lecythidaceae = le-see-tee-da-see > ??

Caesalpiniaceae = says-al-pin-i-A-see > says-al-pin-A-see

Xanthorrhoeaceae = ksan-tor-ro-e-A-see > san-to-ree-AY-see

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just another pronunciation question while we're active:

Vermiculite

Is it pronounced:

Ver-miss-u-lite

or

Ver-mick-u-lite?

I asked a shiela down at bunnings if they had a large bag using the first listed pronunciation and she gave me an odd look and said 'you mean ver-mick-u-lite'? I was like umm, yeah thats what I meant..!?!? Stupid old bird making me look like a tool :P

Or was she the tool?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aizoaceae = iee-so-A-see > ay-so-A-see

Fouquieriaceae = foo-ki-eri-AY-see > foo-ki-ri-AY-see

Lecythidaceae = le-see-tee-da-see > ??

Caesalpiniaceae = says-al-pin-i-A-see > says-al-pin-A-see

Xanthorrhoeaceae = ksan-tor-ro-e-A-see > san-to-ree-AY-see

Torsten I think the end of all these family names are pronounced with an "AY" (rhyming with 'say') at the end. Thus:

Aizoaceae - > Eye-zo-ay-see-ay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats what I would have thought, Sob...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aizoaceae = iee-so-A-see > ay-so-A-see

Fouquieriaceae = foo-ki-eri-AY-see > foo-ki-ri-AY-see

Lecythidaceae = le-see-tee-da-see > ??

Caesalpiniaceae = says-al-pin-i-A-see > says-al-pin-A-see

Xanthorrhoeaceae = ksan-tor-ro-e-A-see > san-to-ree-AY-see

thanks T :)

Torsten I think the end of all these family names are pronounced with an "AY" (rhyming with 'say') at the end. Thus:

Aizoaceae - > Eye-zo-ay-see-ay

Nup, it's definately 'ee' (ê) at the end of -aceae...academic botanists usually pronouce it this way (3 yrs undergrad botany).

One lecturer advised we think of -aceae as A-C-E, ie, Rosaceae = Rose-A-C-E.

and Ace, I'm pretty sure it's ver-mick-u-lite :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhh crap - I'm an idiot :P But I still prefer the vermissulite version - perhaps I'd just prefer a miss to a mick? lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nup, it's definately 'ee' (ê) at the end of -aceae...academic botanists usually pronouce it this way (3 yrs undergrad botany).

One lecturer advised we think of -aceae as A-C-E, ie, Rosaceae = Rose-A-C-E.

I think there's no absolute consensus on that.

The 'ae' is clearly not the same as 'ee' or 'ay' (that I likened it too). The sound is I guess more like -AYEE - a diphthong that glides through a tonation.

For example the most common word I can think of that most people know about with this sound is "ALGAE".

When you say 'algae' its not a discrete ALGEE with a distinct EE diphthong; but rather it has a glided -AYEE kind of sound. At least for me it isn't anyhow :)

Here's a post I found on it:

http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxaco...une/005234.html

Perhaps it's just a joke left to us by the man himself - LINNAEUS. Even in English differences of accent and pronunciation prevail so I don't pretend to know how the Latin spoken in Rome would have pronounced the -AE diphthong. I guess as long as people understand you there's no drama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there's no absolute consensus on that.

Actually there is. Latin rules are quite clear on this. As I mentioned in my previous post, sobriquet is right in that -eae is definitely two syllables in latin rather than the one used in anglicised latin. See, the ae is one sound, often written as a combined/interlinked letter. A plain 'a' is pronounced kinda like 'uh' in latin [as in punish]. The ae sound is more like the english 'a' [as in pay]. The 'e' in front of the 'ae' is a totally separate letter and even syllable. While there might be some argument about the exact sound of the 'ae' there really is no argument about the fact that -eae are two distinctly sounded out letters/syllables in latin.

So, the correct latin pronunciation of eae is ee-ay. This is too complicated for english speakers, so is widely shortened to a single syllable -ee. Even most english botanists will use this and certainly I doubt any horticulturist is aware of any different version. This is why I said I was cutting corners on that aprticular issue. There is only so much shit you can push uphill.

Even in English differences of accent and pronunciation prevail so I don't pretend to know how the Latin spoken in Rome would have pronounced the -AE diphthong.

There is a lot of discussion about how we can know the sounds of a dead language. However this argument is usually only brought forward from people who have not studied latin to any depth. I don't claim to have any grasp on latin whatsoever, but this phenomenon of a dead language has fascinated me over the years, so I have paid some attention to it. Most letters and sounds are beyond dispute. This is because the romans did a lot of writing and a lot of poetry. And they also did a lot of writing about poetry [ie, where they critiqued each other]. Poetry is the best way to associate one sound with another. If it's supposed to rhyme then it also has to sound similar. Roman poetry has settled most arguments about pronunciation. The only one that I am aware of that continues is the one about the letter c, and most scholars simply agree to disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think there's no absolute consensus on that.

Actually there is. Latin rules are quite clear on this. As I mentioned in my previous post, sobriquet is right in that -eae is definitely two syllables in latin rather than the one used in anglicised latin.

Yes. This is what I was trying to convey. That the -eae has two syllables, and that the -ae end syllable has a sound between an 'ee' and 'ay'; kind of glided from the back of the throat to the front.

Here's an example page on supposed proper Latin pronunciation...

http://www.saltspring.com/capewest/pron.htm

It has the example of 'algae' that I mentioned above but it indicates that the 'g' is pronounced as a 'j' as in jack ie. "aljee" I'm comfortable with people using that pronunciation but I prefer pronouncing the 'g' as a hard 'g' as in gay. So my pronunciation would be 'algayee' with that -ayee not as two syllables but as a melded or glided single syllable. It's probably better heard rather than described.

On that same page which purports to be canonical on biological pronunciation, there is evidence of another anomaly.

Down the page for example it indicates that 'fungi' should be pronounced 'funjeye'. I pronounce the word as 'fun-gi' with 'i' as a short 'i' as in 'bill', and the 'g' again as a hard 'g' as in goal.

A good example of AE pronounciation on that same page is one that I'd overlooked. And that is the example of CAESAR. Most people know how to pronounce this word or have heard it. It's indicated pronunciation as 'seesar' is quite misleading. Most people pronounce it as you would the word 'seizer' or one who seizes; and this often is made to rhyme with the word 'geezer'. The subtlety of 'ae' in Caesar is that it has the sound of 'e' as in 'bed' followed by the 'ee' of 'street' a very subtle melting of two sounds into one syllable.

Anyhow, enough from me on this. There's enough room for all sorts of variations and in any case the Anglicised pronunciations are all going to be some sort of bastardisation of some standard. Even across the Tasman the pronunciation of 'i' is very different despite common heritages and common spellings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given there is consensus in regards to Latin pronunciation per se , there is no need to argue the point in that regard....however, the title of this thread concerns Australian pronunciation of botanical names.

Bearing this in mind, the 'correct' (or, alternatively, implicitly agreed upon) pronounciation of -aceae, in Australia, is as Torsten has clearly indicated phoenetically (notwithstanding corner cutting).

This is how -aceae is pronouned in the Australian scientific community, and in its tertiary educational institutions.

In my experience, in this context, there is consensus....it's Rose-ay-see, not Rose-ace-ee-ay, or Rose-aish-ah as some people say. No need to pfaff around endlessly with tonal tid-bits....uneccessary circumlocution IMO.

In Stearn's Botanical Latin (considered the text on pronunciation) a pragmatic approach is taken:

"How they are pronounced really matters little provided they sound pleasant and are understood by all."

Probably most people would understand what one meant if one said 'Rose-ace-ee-ay', but then you'd come across 'out of the loop' in some circles.

In part it's academic snobbery I suppose, in fact, there may even be an interesting research project in there for a sociologist of science, but its also about standardisation (and hence communication) within a given scientific research community.

In an ideal world 'pure' botanical Latin would be used by all, making communication easier on an international level, but in reality (and contingent upon history, politics, culture etc etc), there is regional variation....

And hence, for want of a better term, we belong to the 'Anglo-Saxon' research community, and share its rules of pronunciation....even when there may be no 'absolute', universal rule beyond a certain point... right or wrong, whatever subtleties you wanna garnish it with, for all intents and purposes, the 'correct' pronunciation in Oz is 'ee'/ 'see'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wandjina, you are forgetting one main underlying fact. In europe most botanists have studied at least 4 years of latin. In fact, until 15 years ago it was a prerequisite of entering natural sciences at university. In America you only get latin scholars in the upper class universities, while in australia you get virtually NONE!

So, you can't really say that pronunciation born out of ignorance is 'correct'.

I am sure many australian botanists would cringe if they restrospectivly elarnt latin at how ridiculous they sound to their european conterparts.

The main dynamic with anglicised latin is the fact that the majority of english speaking botany academics do not know any latin at all. They can also travel far and wide and not actually leave their language. For a german or french botanical scholar it is imperative to make himself understood to a completely different language a mere 500km or so from where he lives. So, while an english speaker may not need to make himself understood in germany, russia, france, spain, japan, etc, the fact that he CAN'T is most certainly a limitation to him.

For example, I went to a botany conference last year and an american speaker continually mispronounced the genus which he had been working on for the last 10 years. The fact that someone can immerse himself into the study of one plant to such a degree and not be aware of the correct pronunciation became one of the main talking points of the conference social time. How can you be an academic authority on something and not know it's name?!?

As for australian botanists, most of them can't even get simple things right, like double i at the end of species names, or the fact that i is not pronounced i, but ee. Or that 'th' is pronounced as a drawn out 't', and etc etc. Basically australian botanists mostly don't have a clue about botanical latin. When you do find an australian botanists who has studied some latin you will find he will agree. But as I said before, there is only so much shit you can push uphill and I think anyone who tries to use correct botanical latin would simply give up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

have done a bit more reading on family names and most english botanical latin guides actually do insist on the two syllable pronunciation of family endings. They make both sounds idential 'ee' sounds. So, this one syllable nonsense appears to be uniquely australian and I think I've already explained the reasons behind it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, you can't really say that pronunciation born out of ignorance is 'correct'.

I studied some Latin in high school, then independently as an undergrad, and have also learnt a great deal from your good self on the subject...hence I and am well aware of the proper pronunciation of -aceae.

However, I (and several other botanists I know, including two educated in the UK) say it the same way you choose to say it, largely because, as noted earlier, for the sake of ease/convienience and in lieu of 'uphill shit pushing'. While it may not be written in stone, this pronunciation is implicitly agreed upon by bonafide Australian botanists as being correct (or at least the closest approximation).

Thus, ending in an 'ee' sound is the most 'correct' way to say it in this country.

Also, please note my (over-usage) of inverted commas...I've made clear my social constructivist leanings. In this instance I take 'correct' as meaning most useful or practically efficaceous in a given context, as opposed to representing a clearly distinct and mutually exclusive category of absolute truth. There are some standards in science that are 'constructed' this way, pronunication being one of them (the finer points of behavioural norms another example).

The main point is, end of plant-family names does not rhyme with 'say' in Australia....yet it is a very,very common mis-pronunciation here, and this is best cleared up IMO, if only on a pragmatic (as opposed to complex linguistic) basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×