![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20090117132039im_/http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/images/spacer.gif)
|
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20090117132039im_/http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/images/spacer.gif) |
Another Dimension
Cicero and Burkholderia
cepacia: What’s in a Name?
John E. Moore* and Frederick Williams†
*Belfast City Hospital, Belfast, Northern Ireland; and †The Queen’s University
of Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland
Suggested citation for this article: Moore JE,
Williams F. Cicero and Burkholderia cepacia: What's in a Name?
Emerg Infect Dis [serial online] 2003 Apr [date cited]. Available
from: URL: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol9no4/02-0700.htm
Then said they unto
him, Say now Shibboleth: and he said Sibboleth: for he could not frame
to pronounce it right. Then they took him, and slew him at the passes
of Jordan: and there fell at that time of the Ephraimites forty and
two thousand.
Judges 12:6
In Old Testament times, mispronunciation bore a price. The Gileadites
(circa 1143 B.C.) used pronunciation to differentiate their own from the
Ephraimites, and the consequences of mispronunciation were severe. Today,
mispronunciation, though not a matter of life and death, presents problems
when it interferes with communication. In scientific nomenclature, Greek
or Latin bionomials of infectious disease microorganisms are often mispronounced,
sometimes causing confusion among healthcare professionals (e.g., infectious
disease physicians, epidemiologists, and even microbiologists). Unlike
horticulturalists, who have masterfully developed a large repertoire of
common names for botanical species thereby avoiding the need for and potential
mispronunciation of classical Greek and Latin, infectious disease specialists
still rely on Greek and Latin bionomials.
How important is a standard pronunciation of bionomials? Language is
about communication. Provided the parties in a discussion can understand
each other, variations in pronunciation of individual words can be tolerated
or disregarded. Everyday modern English is filled with examples of variant
pronunciations that cause no communication problems (e.g., either, tomato,
laboratory, fertile). These variant pronunciations have many causes. Regional
practice is probably the single most important variant, but educational
and social backgrounds also play a part, as do personal preferences and
even etymologic theories. It would be futile and (some believe) undesirable
to impose uniformity by prescribing approved pronunciations when communication
is not compromised. Moreover, in all languages, pronunciation changes
constantly.
Burkholderia cepacia, an important gram-negative bacterial pathogen
in patients with cystic fibrosis, may cause premature death in these patients.
Since its first description in 1950 by Walter Burkholder (1),
the pathogen has undergone several taxonomic reclassifications (2)
in accordance with the Bacteriologic Code (1990 revision). However, uncertainty
still surrounds the clinical relevance of its evolving taxonomy, particularly
in regards to the nine described genomovars of the B. cepacia complex
(BCC). The species name cepa'cia comes from L. fem. N. caepa
or cepa (onion). Most confusion surrounding this species name was
initially due to its transfer from the genus Pseudomonas to the
newly described genus Burkholderia by Yabuuchi et al. in 1992 (3).
The practice of renaming individual BBC genomovars with species names
when phenotypic differentiation becomes available has heightened the confusion,
as in the renaming of B. cepacia genomovar II to B. multivorans,
where problems arise both with physicians (in infection control) and with
patients (psychological acceptance of the disease).
Even though in B. cepacia, taxonomic issues rather than pronunciation
are at the root of confusion, the pathogen neatly encapsulates several
aspects of the linguistic conundrum involving “correct” pronunciation
of Latin binomials. The correct pronunciation of both the genus Burkholderia
and the species cepacia is still debated. The debate is mainly
about the correct pronunciation of cepacia, but the genus name,
Burkholderia, also deserves some consideration. The genus name
is formed from the surname Burkholder, on which a Latin suffix –ia
has been grafted. How should this synthetic word be pronounced? With the
original pronunciation of the name retained as far as possible (long o
and stress on second syllable) or with a more Latinized effect (short
o and stress on third syllable, possibly lengthening its vowel)?
Or is this in fact a nonexistent problem because the word is normally
encountered in print so variations in pronunciation present no confusion?
The scientific and infectious disease communities would benefit from
the adoption of a standard pronunciation of Latin binomials that would
obviate confusion and ambiguities. The Linnaean binomial system uses Latin
morphology and grammar in forming its names, and they are equally respected
in China and Peru. Why not adopt a standard pronunciation? An immediate
practical objection is that there is hardly a “standard Latin pronunciation.”
Throughout history, Latin pronunciation has developed in accordance to
the vernacular language of its users. Even as long ago as the 16th century,
when Latin was of necessity the common language of such multinational
organizations as the Roman Empire and the Catholic Church, speakers of
Latin from different nations could not understand each other. This linguistic
situation was satirized in 1528 by Erasmus, who proposed to standardize
a reconstructed version of classical Latin pronunciation, i.e., the practice
(as far as it could be deduced) of 1,500 years earlier. His efforts had
only limited success. Two and a half centuries later, Samuel Johnson,
in his Life of Milton, condemned those who, like Milton, sought to replace
the “English” pronunciation with the “Italian.” A remnant of Johnson’s
“English” system still persists in the Latin-derived jargon used by British
lawyers. Toward the end of the 19th century, schoolmasters and classics
scholars began adopting a restored pronunciation (reconstructed from heterogeneous
evidence) that aimed to reproduce Latin pronunciation in the time of Cicero
or Virgil (i.e., the first centuries B.C. and A.D.). This reform was supported
in 1923 by a committee appointed by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom,
but the “new way” was not universally accepted.
Analogous situations are found in other European countries. In Italy,
the church pronunciation still carries much prestige. In France, the reform
movement encountered bitter opposition. However, the views of responsible
classics scholars today seem to converge in both theoretical and practical
terms. The most promising system is described by W. Sidney Allen (4)
in which he uses symbols of the International Phonetic Alphabet. According
to this system, both cs in cepacia would be pronounced hard
(like English k); the first vowel, e, would be long (approximately
as in Received Pronunciation of gate); the second, a, would
also be long (approximately as in RP father); i (as in
dip) and a would be short; and the stress would fall on the
second syllable. There is some degree of artificiality in this system,
since cepacia is not a classical word but a later scientific coinage,
formed from the classical Latin caepa. Indeed, this scholarly pronunciation
does not correspond with any current pronunciations in the scientific
and infectious disease communities. Any attempt to introduce it as a standard
might paradoxically cause further confusion.
The standard pronunciation of Latin that scholars have reconstructed
implies the primacy (for literary purposes) of the so-called Golden Age
of Caesar, Cicero, and the Augustan poets and historians. Infectious disease
specialists in the 21st century should not adopt this pronunciation, unless
it is a genuinely useful and acceptable solution to a real problem. Our
times, unlike the era of the Gileadites, do not deem mispronunciation
a capital offence. Classicists should be willing to help if they are asked
but have no proprietary rights over the functional idiolect of modern
scientific Latin whose users can use whatever pronunciation they find
conducive to communication.
Dr. Moore, a member
of the International Burkholderia cepacia Working Group, is principal
clinical scientist in medical microbiology at the Northern Ireland Public
Health Laboratory, Belfast City Hospital. His research interests include
the development of molecular tools that characterize microbial pathogens
in infectious diseases to aid in patient management, particularly the
use of ribosomal RNA detection and sequencing techniques to detect etiologic
agents of culture-negative infections.
Prof. Williams teaches
Greek at the Queen’s University of Belfast. Much of his work has focused
on Hellenistic poetry (especially that of Callimachus); he has also
written on Babrius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Ovid, Juvenal, and Colluthus
and has investigated linguistic usage, theophany, the relationship of
the Cynics to early Christianity, polar bears in antiquity, and E.M.
Forster’s use of the Daphne story. He is now editing Cercidas of Megalopolis.
References
- Burkholder WH. Sour skin: a bacterial rot of onion
bulbs. Phytopathology 1950;40:115–7.
- Coenye T, Vandamme P, Govan JR, LiPuma JJ. Taxonomy
and identification of the Burkholderia cepacia complex. J
Clin Microbiol 2001;39:3427–36.
- Yabuuchi E, Kosako Y, Oyaizu H. Proposal
of Burkholderia den. nov. and transfer of seven species of the
genus Pseudomonas homology group II to the new genus with type
species Burkholderia cepacia (Palleroni & Holmes 1981) comb.
nov. Microbiol Immunol 1992;36:1251–75.
- Allen WS. Vox Latina: a guide to the pronunciation of classical Latin.
2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1965.
|