<= /div>

Probably, with a lot of work that is. I don't think I could= translate all the large molecule nomenclature at this point but I do have = to take some biochem classes in these next semesters so I will be learning = about those in detail in the next 2 or 3 semesters (Like I said, I know how= the system works, just not an expert...not yet anyway). Obviously th= e lojban is going to be the hardest part for me, you you certainly seem to = be pretty fluent in lojban though so between the two two of us and maybe so= me other help I bet we could do it if you want to make a project of it.

As for giving specific common names to animals I thin= k that there probably is room for that sort of specificity in loj= ban. There SHOULD be, I think, otherwise I wouldn't see any point in = learning it (learning a language with that sort of limitation). Exact= ly how it might be possible I am not certain of at this point in my lojban = education but I have some ideas. I see that there is, in fact, a lujvo for = the American Robin specifically in jbovlaste by gejyspa (who I am gues= sing might actually be a biologist judging by the definitions he has entere= d in jbovlaste).

Anyway, I knew about {la'o} and I= kind of figured that would be the preferred way of marking that.= I was just sort of hopping that if there would be some sort of 'spec= ial' way to denote it so maybe it would be considered 'special' or maybe so= that it wouldn't look so messy in an alternate orthography. Like a way to = denote that it would be phonetically lojbanized Latin or something to keep = with w/e constructed orthography in use. Alternately it might be poss= ible to add in extra glyphs in said orthography that might correspond to th= e non lerfu inf the Roman alphabet [namely h,q,and w] if there was a desire= to not have to revert to a Roman orthography. Of course even if at some po= int in the likely FAR future Lojban does become relatively widely used lang= uage it still seems pretty unlikely that a non Roman alphabet orthography w= ill ever be commonplace so that whole issue is moot. Yeah...

By the way w/e is shorthand for 'whatever', it is like an = 'lol' or 'gtg' sort of thing (I rarely use texting abbreviations in general= but for some reason I do use 'w/e', specifically, a lot. Don't know why, i= t just somehow became a habit of mine).

On Thursday, March 8, 2012= 12:22:29 PM UTC-6, Pierre Abbat wrote:

On Wednesday, March 07, 2012 17:43:07 RexScientiarum wrote:
>= ; Yeah, I know on the taxonomy. What I meant was that it is (sort of)=
> regulated by by several groups like ICN (formerly ICBN) and ICZN, = among
> others. But w/e, that is probably irrelevant (I'll expl= ain why I even
> brought it up later). Still, my main question is how= do we talk about these
> sorts of things in lojban? Is there a= cmavo that says: "Binomial follows'?
> or 'IUPAC preffered name foll= ows'? Or do we just use {la}, {la'o}, and
> {zoi} or w/e?
To stick = a taxonomic name, we use "la'o"; that is in fact what it was first
used= for (it derives from "latmo"). As to IUPAC, I don't know yet.
> I= HAD assumed that taxonomy, at least, would be treated in one of those two<= br>> ways (because, as you said, it is always treated as a foreign langu= age,
> hence why it is italicized in print or *supposed *to be underl= ined when
> handwritten) but it looks as if other community members h= ave already begun
> to lojbanize taxonomic names so I thought MAYBE t= here is some feeling that
> there is a need to lojbanize biological c= lassification for whatever reason
> (which is why I ask, and I though= t maybe there was some feeling that the
> current Linnaean method bas= ed primarily on Latin and some Greek and written
> in the Roman alpha= bet wasn't a universal, culturally/scientifically
> unbiased method. = Idk, just trying to understand/rationalize why someone
> thought ther= e had to be a lojban name for eubacteria {fadjurme} and the
> like).<= /p>
If you say "lo strepsiptera" or "lo frangula", you're using a common = name that
happens to be the same (except for capitalization) as the sci= entific name for
the same thing, just as if you say "an octopus" or "la= salvia". There are
ornithologists who have compiled lists of common na= mes for every bird they can
think of, so if someone talks about an Amer= ican Robin or a Black Rail, we know
they mean the same as a particular = scientific name. I don't think we need to do
that in Lojban, or could e= asily; Lojban doesn't have a lot of preexisting
names for birds, fish, = or mammals.
> As far as IUPAC goes, all I meant was that I don't k= now how IUPAC works
> exactly in other languages, other than the fact= that it is different from
> IUPAC nomenclature in English. I d= on't need a description of how to IUPAC
> naming works, at least in E= nglish, I already know how that works. Maybe I
> was a bit misl= eading when I said I didn't have an esoteric understanding of
> becau= se I DO understand it, I just wouldn't claim to be an expert qualified
&= gt; to write the lojban IUPAC rules and that hopefully some well
> re= spected career chemist happened to speak lojban and WOULD be qualified to> write the lojban IUPAC rules. I was trying to be humble; of co= urse now I
> am probably needlessly getting defensive over my 'geek' = ego but so be it.
> I know you weren't trying to be derogatory = or anything so please don't
> take anything I say in a bad way. = ;As far as speaking lojban, however, I AM
> in fact a complete 'noob'= . (It is a good point you made though about how
> unlike Indo-E= uropean languages IUPAC nomenclature is)
I don't know IUPAC well enou= gh to translate it to Lojban. Do you know it well
enough that together = we could?
> As you said there isn't much room left in lojban for a= ll the affixes (which
> I had suspected might be the case) used in IU= PAC nomenclature. As
> mentioned earlier, I am a complete lojba= n 'noob' so this might be a stupid
> question but is there some way t= hat a cmavo or something could be used to
> denote "Hey we're talking= about a chemical nomenclature here!" and thus
> allow the 'grammar' = rules within the limiters to be tweaked to be more
> IUPAC friendly w= hile still keeping the nomenclature 'lojbanic' in the sense
> that it= is unique to lojban, uses lojban valsi and characters (in w/e
> orth= ography), and phonology? Would not a similar system be viable for, say,
= > a unique lojban taxonomy as well? (Since it seems, as mentioned = earlier,
> that some lojban speakers [not me necessarily] appear to t= hink biological
> taxonomy needs to be lojbanized as well.)
I'v= e considered using "tau" for "ide" (e.g. "tabno relkijytau"), as "tanru" means a binary compound phrase. It should be obvious from the presence of=
words for chemical elements, rather than words for words, what kind of= binary
compound is meant.
By the way, what does "w/e" mean?
<= p>Pierre
--
li ze te'a ci vu'u ci bi'e te'a mu du
li ci su'i z= e te'a mu bi'e vu'u ci
=

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/HW= JowR9fFhgJ.
=20 To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.
------=_Part_1655_24299050.1331246815460--