Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 09:11:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: jongausib <so.cool.ogi@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Message-Id: <cd438b47-f9a6-49ea-906a-a7ea9f56a871@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [lojban] Taxonomy and lojban
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_109_22944429.1381335083566"
X-Spam_score: -0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

------=_Part_109_22944429.1381335083566
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Coi rodo,

Ok, if you've been looking at new words added in jbovlaste recently, you've=
=20
maybe noticed that I have added a lot of names for animals and plants.

Why you might wonder?

Well, I don't have a lot of time and energy to think about place structure=
=20
and such for more complex lujvo  (I'm a very busy person), so now and then=
=20
I spend some time to do something mechanically, like adding fu'ivla for=20
different genera, instead of watching tv for example. Kind of relaxing in=
=20
fact (yeah I know, that's not normal, but then I'm a lojbanist;).

So even if I don't participate a lot in discussions and such, I contribute=
=20
to the lojban community on my own terms (and I don't think this is totally=
=20
meaningless for some obvious or non-obvious reasons (read the whole text to=
=20
see what I mean)).=20

I know this is an old topic here, but I hope to give some strong arguments=
=20
here for my view (on biological taxonomy specifically, and on fu'ivlas in=
=20
general).
So this is my recommendation/proposal/essay:


*ON BIOLOGICAL TAXONOMY AND LOJBAN*

I have some personal criteria for adding biological generic names, that I=
=20
think would be nice if more followed (for consistency, even if I don't want=
=20
to force anyone, and anyway I don't have authority to do so):

*1) Typically add names for genera, rather than species or some other taxa.=
=20

*Why? Well the most common case is to talk about "fishes", "birds",=20
"cattle", etc. in a generic, non-scientific kind of discourse. For this we=
=20
already have gismu-words.

If you would like to be more specific you'll probably speak of some or=20
another genus of fishes, birds, cattle, etc. Genus (or in some cases a=20
higher taxa) is usually a more basic concept than species (most people=20
can't tell the difference between the bananas *Musa acuminata* and *Musa=20
balbisiana*, so they just talk about the genus Musa =3D 'Banana' =3D {badna=
}).

But there are exceptions, like cats. {mlatu} is for certain vague in the=20
same way as 'cat' is in natlang, you can't be sure if someone using this=20
word refers to all felids or just the domestic cat (Felis catus) (most=20
probably the latter; some other common felids also got their own gismu:=20
{tirxu} and {cinfo}). If you would like to be specific about that you're=20
referring to domestic cats, you'll therefore have to use either a lujvo or=
=20
a fu'ivla (or a cmevla) with a more narrow definition, lets say {fadmlatu}=
=20
or {tolcicmlatu}.

Anyhow, most of the time when we're using {mlatu} we *assume *that we're=20
talking about domestic cats (see Grice and conventional implicature), and=
=20
in this case the gismu refers to a species as the basic class of referents.=
=20
If someone would like to make distinctions between cats, that person would=
=20
be talking about different breeds like siamese, birma, etc, so in cases=20
where the subspecies/breeds are relevant/useful I also add those to=20
jbovlaste. But for the most part common people does not make distinctions=
=20
on the level of species or lower. And that's why we don't bother to add=20
words for all species/subspecies/breeds (that would be millions of words by=
=20
the way!!!).

As a matter of fact it is quite common that natlangs and their users are=20
not even capable of telling the difference between that or that kind of=20
genera. For example, in English, fishes belonging to the family *
Acipenseridae* are called sturgeons, but some genera in this family do also=
=20
have other common names. I think a good solution for lojban would be to=20
have a descriptive word (lujvo) for the more general concept of sturgeons=
=20
(family), and fu'ivlas for the different genera of sturgeons.

Also, if you would like to translate a text from English which refers to=20
sturgeons, try to see if it is possible to find out if the author refers to=
=20
a specific kind of sturgeon (in that case use a specific word for this,=20
otherwise use the more general concept).

*2) Use fu'ivla to name genera **(and in some cases:=20
species/subspecies/breeds)**. Use lujvo to name other kind of taxa.*

The argument for this is that it would be a very difficult task (if not=20
impossible) indeed to name all genera in the world, based on lujvo (which=
=20
in that case ought to be descriptive).
First, it would be difficult to avoid using the very same word for two=20
distinct genera. Second, to give every genera a name which describes the=20
most salient/necessary property of that genus, require that you're a very,=
=20
very competent biologist. As a matter of fact not even the biological=20
taxonomy itself meets this demand. Many scientific biological names are in=
=20
fact totally arbitrary, inconsistent, bizarre, as they're based on some=20
local common word for that or that plant/animal, gibberish words, words=20
beginning with 'a' so they would have their entry in the beginning of the=
=20
dictionary, names of some beloved person of the namegiver, false=20
descriptions, and only occasionally based on some significant descriptive=
=20
content.

However, it may be possible to give all *higher *taxa descriptive content=
=20
in the form of lujvos, for example *{fepryfi'e }=3D 'lungfish*' (subclass=
=20
Dipnoi of class Sarcopterygii*)*, or=20
*{recyctimabru}=3D'carnivoran'* (mammal of order Carnivora). The set of tho=
se=20
taxa are not quite as big as the set of genera and species at least.


*3) Use fu'ivla stage-3 rather than stage-4*

CLL says: *"Stage 4 fu'ivla do not have any rafsi classifier, and are used=
=20
where a fu'ivla has become so common or so important that it must be made=
=20
as short as possible."*

This is a principle many lojbanists doesn't seem to observe. But there are=
=20
good reasons to do so:

Let us say that you would like to use the stage-4 fu'ivla {prunela}=20
referring to 'Accentator' (genus of bird).=20
First how are the listener supposed to know that you're talking about a=20
bird? You might answer: "Because s/he has learned it from jbovlaste". But=
=20
then you mean that you'll have to learn thousands of oddly looking words=20
(many of them derived from latin/greek), and be able to know when someone=
=20
is talking about birds, cats, cars, mathematical concepts or some other=20
topic? That seem to convert lojban to something similar to natlang, where=
=20
the vocabulary consists of a lot of words you'll just have to memorize=20
without any kind of regularity. With a stage-3 'topic prefix', you know at=
=20
least that the speaker refers to some kind of bird, even if you've never=20
heard the word {cipnrprunela} before.

Second, say that the listener is a biologist and recognize the word=20
{prunela}. But now it shows that this word is ambiguous. What are the=20
arguments to let {prunela} refer to a genus of birds, and not to a genus of=
=20
herbaceous plants with the same name? The word is of course ambiguous in=20
natlang also, but shouldn't lojban has as it goal to minimize ambiguity as=
=20
much as possible?

What wikipedia has to say about this kind of ambiguity: *"A genus in one=20
kingdom is allowed to bear a scientific name that is in use as a generic=20
name (or the name of a taxon in another rank) in a kingdom that is governed=
=20
by a different nomenclature code (there are some five thousand such names=
=20
in use in more than one kingdom)."*

An objection might be that stage-3 fu'ivla are difficult to pronounce=20
and/or sound awful. That's a pretty subjective opinion, and I respect it,=
=20
but personally I don't have any difficulties to pronounce stage-3 fu'ivla=
=20
and I even do like the sound of many of them.

*4) Use the rules for constructing stage-3 fu'ivla *(CLL 4.7<http://dag.git=
hub.io/cll/4/7/>)=20
*and Lojbanizing the scientific names *(CLL 4.8<http://dag.github.io/cll/4/=
8/>
)* correctly
*

If everyone would use this convention, I think that would give jbovlaste a=
=20
more consistent appearance.=20

When I started this project I didn't always use those naming rules=20
correctly, and I regret that now. Just think about having to go back and=20
try to correct thousands of misspelled words later on (whoever that person=
=20
might be), oicai:(

When you're constructing lujvos also be careful how to remove dependent=20
places, order of places, etc. See CLL chapter 12<http://dag.github.io/cll/1=
2/1/>
.

*5) Use the same form to fill the definition*

Use a word like {sparkordiline} as an example of a well-defined word (seb=
=20
standard, 'seb' that's me - I've become tired of my lojban name), or come=
=20
up with some standard of your own.
If you think that everyone can have their own standard, so fine, but this=
=20
is how my suggestion looks like:

   - Choose a genus
   - genus Cordyline is a genus of plants, so {spati} would serve as a=20
   stage-3 topic prefix.=20
   - To shorten the word I use the short rafsi variant if possible, so we=
=20
   get {sparkordiline}: *s1 is a t=C4=AB/palm lily (genus Cordyline) of=20
   species/cultivar s2*
   - In stage-3 fu'ivla definition I give the variables name after their=20
   gismu-based prefix, so here I use s (=3D{spati}) instead of x. Maybe I s=
hould=20
   have used both...
   - *Gloss word 1*: *palm lily ; *in sense:* plant (genus Cordyline)*, *Gl=
oss=20
   word 2*: *t=C4=AB ; *in sense:* plant (genus Cordyline)*
   - Note that I fill  'in sense'-data. Sometimes you just don't know if=20
   the natlang counterparts got some any other sense (like in the case of=
=20
   Prunella), and anyhow it looks nice to always specify the gismu-base (he=
re=20
   'plant (genus Cordyline)').
   - some plants of Cordyline are also trees, so to denote those species=20
   specifically you could also add the word {ricrkordiline}. Definition: *t=
1is a t=C4=AB/palm lily (genus Cordyline) of species/cultivar t
   2*

*6) Derivates*

Next step is to see if Cordyline plants are useful for something. Not what=
=20
I can see on wikipedia. But in case you find parts of a plant/animal/object=
=20
useful, invent fu'ivlas for these as well, derived from the first word.=20

For example: vanilla orchid (genus Vanilla) =3D {sparvanila}  (note that yo=
u=20
can't use {xrula} here since that is just an pretty irrelevant part of the=
=20
plant), vanilla pod =3D {rutrvanila}, vanilla seed =3D {tsirvanila}, vanill=
a=20
extract =3D {runtrvanila}, vanilla sugar =3D {satrvanila}, vanilla sauce =
=3D=20
{sansrvanila}. Compare that with the stage-4 fu'ivla {varnila} - what does=
=20
that mean?

This is also an argument why the project to systematically go through all=
=20
genera is important: to generate a lot of new useful words, not least for=
=20
culinary purposes;)

*7) Notes*

Now is it time to fill in the notes for all connected words, to make=20
cross-referents, and other useful information. But this is not the most=20
important part I think.

*8) Type species/genus etc*

Optimally the type species should be a part of the definition of a genus.=
=20
That leads to an idea what {lo'e} and {zu'i} are capable of referring to in=
=20
scientific contexts. But it isn't always that easy to find information=20
about the type species. Not on (and according to) wikipedia at least.

Wikipedia: *"Because of the rules of scientific naming, or "binomial=20
nomenclature", each genus should have a designated type, although in=20
practice there is a backlog of older names that may not yet have a type."*


/End of list of criteria/
I'm sure my text here is full of grammatical errors, but otherwise: Is it=
=20
too much to ask for, to upload this text to lojban.org?=20
And I really look forward to hear your comments about my view on this topic=
.

mu'omi'e seb

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

------=_Part_109_22944429.1381335083566
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Coi rodo,<br><br>Ok, if you've been looking at new words a=
dded in jbovlaste recently, you've maybe noticed that I have added a lot of=
 names for animals and plants.<br><br>Why you might wonder?<br><br>Well, I =
don't have a lot of time and energy to think about place structure and such=
 for more complex lujvo&nbsp; (I'm a very busy person), so now and then I s=
pend some time to do something mechanically, like adding fu'ivla for differ=
ent genera, instead of watching tv for example. Kind of relaxing in fact (y=
eah I know, that's not normal, but then I'm a lojbanist;).<br><br>So even i=
f I don't participate a lot in discussions and such, I contribute to the lo=
jban community on my own terms (and I don't think this is totally meaningle=
ss for some obvious or non-obvious reasons (read the whole text to see what=
 I mean)). <br><br>I know this is an old topic here, but I hope to give som=
e strong arguments here for my view (on biological taxonomy specifically, a=
nd on fu'ivlas in general).<br>So this is my recommendation/proposal/essay:=
<br><br><br><font size=3D"4"><b>ON BIOLOGICAL TAXONOMY AND LOJBAN</b></font=
><br><br>I have some personal criteria for adding biological generic names,=
 that I think would be nice if more followed (for consistency, even if I do=
n't want to force anyone, and anyway I don't have authority to do so):<br><=
br><b>1) Typically add names for genera, rather than species or some other =
taxa. <br><br></b>Why? Well the most common case is to talk about "fishes",=
 "birds", "cattle", etc. in a generic, non-scientific kind of discourse. Fo=
r this we already have gismu-words.<br><br>If you would like to be more spe=
cific you'll probably speak of some or another genus of fishes, birds, catt=
le, etc. Genus (or in some cases a higher taxa) is usually a more basic con=
cept than species (most people can't tell the difference between the banana=
s <i>Musa acuminata</i> and <i>Musa balbisiana</i>, so they just talk about=
 the genus Musa =3D 'Banana' =3D {badna}).<br><br>But there are exceptions,=
 like cats. {mlatu} is for certain vague in the same way as 'cat' is in nat=
lang, you can't be sure if someone using this word refers to all felids or =
just the domestic cat (Felis catus) (most probably the latter; some other c=
ommon felids also got their own gismu: {tirxu} and {cinfo}). If you would l=
ike to be specific about that you're referring to domestic cats, you'll the=
refore have to use either a lujvo or a fu'ivla (or a cmevla) with a more na=
rrow definition, lets say {fadmlatu} or <tt>{tolcicmlatu</tt>}.<br><br>Anyh=
ow, most of the time when we're using {mlatu} we <i>assume </i>that we're t=
alking about domestic cats (see Grice and conventional implicature), and in=
 this case the gismu refers to a species as the basic class of referents. I=
f someone would like to make distinctions between cats, that person would b=
e talking about different breeds like siamese, birma, etc, so in cases wher=
e the subspecies/breeds are relevant/useful I also add those to jbovlaste. =
But for the most part common people does not make distinctions on the level=
 of species or lower. And that's why we don't bother to add words for all s=
pecies/subspecies/breeds (that would be millions of words by the way!!!).<b=
r><br>As a matter of fact it is quite common that natlangs and their users =
are not even capable of telling the difference between that or that kind of=
 genera. For example, in English, fishes belonging to the family <b>Acipens=
eridae</b> are called sturgeons, but some genera in this family do also hav=
e other common names. I think a good solution for lojban would be to have a=
 descriptive word (lujvo) for the more general concept of sturgeons (family=
), and fu'ivlas for the different genera of sturgeons.<br><br>Also, if you =
would like to translate a text from English which refers to sturgeons, try =
to see if it is possible to find out if the author refers to a specific kin=
d of sturgeon (in that case use a specific word for this, otherwise use the=
 more general concept).<br><br><b>2) Use fu'ivla to name genera </b><i>(and=
 in some cases: species/subspecies/breeds)</i><b>. Use lujvo to name other =
kind of taxa.</b><br><br>The argument for this is that it would be a very d=
ifficult task (if not impossible) indeed to name all genera in the world, b=
ased on lujvo (which in that case ought to be descriptive).<br>First, it wo=
uld be difficult to avoid using the very same word for two distinct genera.=
 Second, to give every genera a name which describes the most salient/neces=
sary property of that genus, require that you're a very, very competent bio=
logist. As a matter of fact not even the biological taxonomy itself meets t=
his demand. Many scientific biological names are in fact totally arbitrary,=
 inconsistent, bizarre, as they're based on some local common word for that=
 or that plant/animal, gibberish words, words beginning with 'a' so they wo=
uld have their entry in the beginning of the dictionary, names of some belo=
ved person of the namegiver, false descriptions, and only occasionally base=
d on some significant descriptive content.<br><br>However, it may be possib=
le to give all <i>higher </i>taxa descriptive content in the form of lujvos=
, for example <i>{fepryfi'e }=3D 'lungfish</i>' (subclass Dipnoi of class <=
span class=3D"class" style=3D"white-space:nowrap;">Sarcopterygii<b>)</b></s=
pan>, or <br><h1><span style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style=3D"backgr=
ound-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size=3D"2"><i>{recyctimabru}=3D'carn=
ivoran'</i> (mammal of order Carnivora). The set of those taxa are not quit=
e as big as the set of genera and species at least.<br></font></span></span=
></h1><p><br></p><p><b>3) Use fu'ivla stage-3 rather than stage-4</b></p><p=
>CLL says: <i>"Stage 4 fu'ivla do not have any rafsi classifier, and are us=
ed where a=20
fu'ivla has become <u>so common or so important</u> that it must be made as=
=20
short as possible."</i></p><p>This is a principle many lojbanists doesn't s=
eem to observe. But there are good reasons to do so:</p><p>Let us say that =
you would like to use the stage-4 fu'ivla {prunela} referring to 'Accentato=
r' (genus of bird). <br>First how are the listener supposed to know that yo=
u're talking about a bird? You might answer: "Because s/he has learned it f=
rom jbovlaste". But then you mean that you'll have to learn thousands of od=
dly looking words (many of them derived from latin/greek), and be able to k=
now when someone is talking about birds, cats, cars, mathematical concepts =
or some other topic? That seem to convert lojban to something similar to na=
tlang, where the vocabulary consists of a lot of words you'll just have to =
memorize without any kind of regularity. With a stage-3 'topic prefix', you=
 know at least that the speaker refers to some kind of bird, even if you've=
 never heard the word {cipnrprunela} before.<br></p><p>Second, say that the=
 listener is a biologist and recognize the word {prunela}. But now it shows=
 that this word is ambiguous. What are the arguments to let {prunela} refer=
 to a genus of birds, and not to a genus of herbaceous plants with the same=
 name? The word is of course ambiguous in natlang also, but shouldn't lojba=
n has as it goal to minimize ambiguity as much as possible?</p><p>What wiki=
pedia has to say about this kind of ambiguity: <i>"A genus in one kingdom
 is allowed to bear a scientific name that is in use as a generic name=20
(or the name of a taxon in another rank) in a kingdom that is governed=20
by a different nomenclature code (there are some five thousand such names i=
n use in more than one kingdom)."</i></p><p>An objection might be that stag=
e-3 fu'ivla are difficult to pronounce and/or sound awful. That's a pretty =
subjective opinion, and I respect it, but personally I don't have any diffi=
culties to pronounce stage-3 fu'ivla and I even do like the sound of many o=
f them.<br></p><p><b>4) Use the rules for constructing stage-3 fu'ivla </b>=
(<a href=3D"http://dag.github.io/cll/4/7/">CLL 4.7</a>) <b>and Lojbanizing =
the scientific names </b>(<a href=3D"http://dag.github.io/cll/4/8/">CLL 4.8=
</a>)<b> correctly<br></b></p><p>If everyone would use this convention, I t=
hink that would give jbovlaste a more consistent appearance.&nbsp;</p><p>Wh=
en I started this project I didn't always use those naming rules correctly,=
 and I regret that now. Just think about having to go back and try to corre=
ct thousands of misspelled words later on (whoever that person might be), o=
icai:(</p><p>When you're constructing lujvos also be careful how to remove =
dependent places, order of places, etc. See <a href=3D"http://dag.github.io=
/cll/12/1/">CLL chapter 12</a>.</p><p><b>5) Use the same form to fill the d=
efinition</b><br></p><p>Use a word like {sparkordiline} as an example of a =
well-defined word (seb standard, 'seb' that's me - I've become tired of my =
lojban name), or come up with some standard of your own.<br>If you think th=
at everyone can have their own standard, so fine, but this is how my sugges=
tion looks like:<br></p><ul><li>Choose a genus<br></li><li>genus Cordyline =
is a genus of plants, so {spati} would serve as a stage-3 topic prefix. <br=
></li><li>To shorten the word I use the short rafsi variant if possible, so=
 we get {sparkordiline}: <b><i>s<sub>1</sub> is a t=C4=AB/palm lily (genus =
Cordyline) of species/cultivar s<sub>2</sub></i></b></li><li>In stage-3 fu'=
ivla definition I give the variables name after their gismu-based prefix, s=
o here I use s (=3D{spati}) instead of x. Maybe I should have used both...<=
br></li><li><u>Gloss word 1</u>: <b>palm lily ; </b>in sense:<b> plant (gen=
us Cordyline)</b>, <u>Gloss word 2</u>: <b>t=C4=AB ; </b>in sense:<b> plant=
 (genus Cordyline)</b></li><li>Note that I fill&nbsp; 'in sense'-data. Some=
times you just don't know if the natlang counterparts got some any other se=
nse (like in the case of Prunella), and anyhow it looks nice to always spec=
ify the gismu-base (here 'plant (genus Cordyline)').<br></li><li>some plant=
s of Cordyline are also trees, so to denote those species specifically you =
could also add the word {ricrkordiline}. Definition: <i>t<sub>1</sub> is a =
t=C4=AB/palm lily (genus Cordyline) of species/cultivar t<sub>2</sub></i></=
li></ul><b>6) Derivates</b><br><br>Next step is to see if Cordyline plants =
are useful for something. Not what I can see on wikipedia. But in case you =
find parts of a plant/animal/object useful, invent fu'ivlas for these as we=
ll, derived from the first word. <br><br>For example: vanilla orchid (genus=
 Vanilla) =3D {sparvanila}&nbsp; (note that you can't use {xrula} here sinc=
e that is just an pretty irrelevant part of the plant), vanilla pod =3D {ru=
trvanila}, vanilla seed =3D {tsirvanila}, vanilla extract =3D {runtrvanila}=
, vanilla sugar =3D {satrvanila}, vanilla sauce =3D {sansrvanila}. Compare =
that with the stage-4 fu'ivla {varnila} - what does that mean?<br><br>This =
is also an argument why the project to systematically go through all genera=
 is important: to generate a lot of new useful words, not least for culinar=
y purposes;)<br><br><b>7) Notes</b><br><br>Now is it time to fill in the no=
tes for all connected words, to make cross-referents, and other useful info=
rmation. But this is not the most important part I think.<br><br><b>8) Type=
 species/genus etc</b><br><br>Optimally the type species should be a part o=
f the definition of a genus. That leads to an idea what {lo'e} and {zu'i} a=
re capable of referring to in scientific contexts. But it isn't always that=
 easy to find information about the type species. Not on (and according to)=
 wikipedia at least.<br><br>Wikipedia: <i>"Because of the rules of scientif=
ic naming, or "binomial nomenclature", each genus should have a designated =
type, although in practice there is a backlog of older names that may not y=
et have a type."</i><br><p><br></p><p>/End of list of criteria/<br></p>I'm =
sure my text here is full of grammatical errors, but otherwise: Is it too m=
uch to ask for, to upload this text to lojban.org? <br>And I really look fo=
rward to hear your comments about my view on this topic.<br><br>mu'omi'e se=
b<br></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.<br />
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban">http:=
//groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out=
">https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out</a>.<br />

------=_Part_109_22944429.1381335083566--