Received: from mail-ob0-f188.google.com ([209.85.214.188]:49731) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1TodMV-0004f6-CX; Fri, 28 Dec 2012 09:04:57 -0800 Received: by mail-ob0-f188.google.com with SMTP id wc20sf5977958obb.15 for ; Fri, 28 Dec 2012 09:04:41 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=x-received:x-beenthere:x-received:date:from:to:message-id :in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version:x-original-sender :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=2LjRlf6qqdx0L93AO0qWtXghAK1I2SIBKFXkVlDuok0=; b=ZkmIvD/9L6DsSLfUMv9+SGnx89eSJCA0OQLEOXpSwgHa3ABrHhu7tNtiGaAUZlhVIf G09MY+iBng/iqiKjqnMt3FW9yubtYNiLYgzpft5sz8FXKuFq96uKDTgfznh8atWB2W+R AQH1kJnTYsribdvkFA44n2Yy9wy5E/UzWmqxYDjecXT+bG8O4nEmjotJN5ewRKX50ud+ wy0yUKbgwJk5ALFtziZ3VSgBXnyGiQ1MFnkl122MN0ZYTAgh4H4dX+CiorsfmK1o228L cZ65eQSGfCK70npi4SVzpbqNt9Bp4ywd5g0YsVyVYhvVNnDymgn0ArgZMrlD6Jsu9m/J PMrA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:x-beenthere:x-received:date:from:to:message-id :in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version:x-original-sender :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=2LjRlf6qqdx0L93AO0qWtXghAK1I2SIBKFXkVlDuok0=; b=OOqOeJrj/5GlMd/Vcd1AsTHHoN2zMq/tEW/OqouqreYDIX0iOUQ1Irw+OnvvXN4Qeb XkwhE8dgbG0xK6I5HmdusI4KjvXXrQfaMs1vNimu6o1M36ywc+B+c9cSz0+tdIXsRb3k SWldAiT+tnoDzrfB4i9VN82Zy6Ehh3vAsN66tMkGLOyX+17sVqvUGmaqg3wcc1NUNgsQ OYlAAAUWY2B7XXqDFolzn805jQTUnBMDSP4LUjGrfQI/XW4jUsHL6ixwJKOzfNXXz2pL CSqyjjy8xgSOafx60GAQIw7xns/4GBsjR08DVtW/0zyNE/B5Y/yYcg17avfw+mzW/QxK R1Bw== X-Received: by 10.49.128.166 with SMTP id np6mr5234337qeb.31.1356714280985; Fri, 28 Dec 2012 09:04:40 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.49.82.19 with SMTP id e19ls4628437qey.38.gmail; Fri, 28 Dec 2012 09:04:39 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.49.95.68 with SMTP id di4mr5249037qeb.0.1356714279635; Fri, 28 Dec 2012 09:04:39 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 09:04:38 -0800 (PST) From: la gleki To: lojban@googlegroups.com Message-Id: <921eb5a3-b5bd-4cbc-846e-934f82a69abf@googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: <104367346.6AoMEimZjU@caracal> References: <5901091.L7RAquOyoW@caracal> <7626898.ZEy1MSiyjN@caracal> <104367346.6AoMEimZjU@caracal> Subject: Re: [lojban] curnu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-Sender: gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_476_11521961.1356714278764" X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.1 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / ------=_Part_476_11521961.1356714278764 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Friday, December 28, 2012 7:56:49 PM UTC+4, Pierre Abbat wrote: > > On Friday, December 28, 2012 05:08:41 la gleki wrote: > > Any worm-like creatures, I believe. > > I remember that children can sometimes name worms "snakes". The issue is > > somewhat related. > > And this is not the problem of Lojban. > > Can we call snakes reptiles? They used to be called reptiles. > > Some new school textbooks have already started to deny that, however. > > The problem with "reptile" is that the traditional circumscription is > paraphyletic. If you call snakes and crocodiles, but not birds, reptiles, > you > run afoul of the dinosaurs. Birds are a branch of coelurosaurs, which are > dinosaurs, and dinosaurs and crocodiles are both archosaurs, whereas > snakes > are not. But as long as "respa" has a consistent definition, there is no > Lojbanic problem, even if it is paraphyletic. > > The problem with "curnu" is that it has an ambiguous definition or two > competing definitions. It's okay to have a fuzzy definition (there's no > clear > boundary between "blanu" and "crino"), but it's not OK for a brivla to > have > two different meanings, "worm" and "invertebrate". I see. {vertebrata} is a modern term. It should be a zi'evla. Worm must be refered to worm-like creatures only. So I suggest changing the definition. No invertebrates there, please. > Lobsters are invertebrates > but not worms; slowworms are worms but not invertebrates. > > Pierre > -- > gau do li'i co'e kei do > > -- 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/-/frkxwSRKMFEJ. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. ------=_Part_476_11521961.1356714278764 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Friday, December 28, 2012 7:56:49 PM UTC+4, Pierre Abbat wrote:<= blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;bord= er-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">On Friday, December 28, 2012 05= :08:41 la gleki wrote:
> Any worm-like creatures, I believe.
> I remember that children can sometimes name worms "snakes". The is= sue is
> somewhat related.
> And this is not the problem of Lojban.
> Can we call snakes reptiles? They used to be called reptiles.
> Some new school textbooks have already started to deny that, howev= er.

The problem with "reptile" is that the traditional circumscription is= =20
paraphyletic. If you call snakes and crocodiles, but not birds, reptile= s, you=20
run afoul of the dinosaurs. Birds are a branch of coelurosaurs, which a= re=20
dinosaurs, and dinosaurs and crocodiles are both archosaurs, whereas sn= akes=20
are not. But as long as "respa" has a consistent definition, there is n= o=20
Lojbanic problem, even if it is paraphyletic.

The problem with "curnu" is that it has an ambiguous definition or two= =20
competing definitions. It's okay to have a fuzzy definition (there's no= clear=20
boundary between "blanu" and "crino"), but it's not OK for a brivla to = have=20
two different meanings, "worm" and "invertebrate".
I see.
{vertebrata} is a modern term. It should be a = zi'evla.
Worm must be refered to worm-like creatures only.
<= div>So I suggest changing the definition. No invertebrates there, please.
 
Lobsters= are invertebrates=20
but not worms; slowworms are worms but not invertebrates.

Pierre
--=20
gau do li'i co'e kei do

--
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/-/fr= kxwSRKMFEJ.
=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_476_11521961.1356714278764--