Envelope-to: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org
Delivery-date: Sat, 06 Mar 2010 18:30:01 -0800
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding;        b=Tqj6rw8BC/cjKJ1vXaOcVHMzxJwZeAzwJbkIkchrBd4VZKYNV25JvFhf1f2VPnPIDI         MQOLUm3gJ/fWMZNLT4yYbgoPJvUCOSb8P2ghrzlFVKRHriM2Q8CK8KzZipg7ZB7DlZpI         BK+iE9pNFIRGnIer96l+Oi5yqvjwVR1Nk9lMA=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <12d58c161003051256i28dbf1a8t765dbeb625ff0bac@mail.gmail.com>
References: <455853.32262.qm@web88008.mail.re2.yahoo.com>	 <96f789a61003050938t8dc80a9lfcd48563e0e8e99c@mail.gmail.com>	 <201003051426.36188.phma@phma.optus.nu>	 <20100305193218.GA31930@mercury.ccil.org>	 <12d58c161003051223l3c4f4824iee7f2d7c1537766@mail.gmail.com>	 <531055.69254.qm@web88008.mail.re2.yahoo.com>	 <12d58c161003051256i28dbf1a8t765dbeb625ff0bac@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 21:28:34 -0500
Message-ID: <96f789a61003061828h6d3e5733i23839731cb390032@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: [jbovlaste] Re: le'axru dinsauru
From: Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com>
To: jbovlaste@lojban.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: jbovlaste@lojban.org
Content-Length: 1399
Lines: 37

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 3:56 PM, komfo,amonan <komfoamonan@gmail.com> wrote:
>> From: "komfo,amonan" <komfoamonan@gmail.com>
>> To: jbovlaste@lojban.org
>> Sent: Fri, March 5, 2010 3:23:19 PM
>> Subject: [jbovlaste] Re: le'axru dinsauru
>> > > 2) dinsauru(dinosaur)
>> > >
>> > > x1 is a dinosaur of type x2
>>
>>
>> Isn't the x2 of organism brivla usually "species/breed"?
>>
>> But dinosaurs are just too broad a category (further up the heirarchy) for
>> x2 to be species/breed.
>> They are a 'superorder' with suborders which themselves are divided into
>> infraorders, then families.
>> Also they are a subdivision of an infraclass.  In other words, it's just
>> too complicated and that is why
>> I suggested just 'type'.
>
> Both {mabru} and {respa} have the "species/breed" x2. I guess I can see the
> argument for both sides, but I do have an soft spot for "making place
> structures as easy to memorize as possible".

  I think this is really an argument without much distinction.  There
is really no reason just to say "species/breed/type" because, really,
no matter how you define it, any specifier can be reasonably used in
x2 without confusion on the part of the listener.  If it's a species,
they'll think of it as species.  If it's an order, theyll think of it
as an order.  If it's "herbivore" or "flyer", etc. they'll think of it
as type...  QED


                   --gejyspa