From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Tue Jun 22 03:56:08 1993 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Tue, 22 Jun 1993 08:55:57 -0400 Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 3524; Tue, 22 Jun 93 08:54:42 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 1208; Tue, 22 Jun 93 08:56:12 EST Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1993 08:56:08 -0500 Reply-To: vilva@viikki21.helsinki.fi Sender: Lojban list From: VILVA@VIIKKI21.HELSINKI.FI Subject: Re: Animal {gismu} To: Erik Rauch X-Status: Status: OR Message-ID: > Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1993 18:23:31 -0400 > From: John Cowan > Subject: Animal {gismu} > PROPOSAL: I suggest that we need >high-quality< lujvo, or else new gismu, > for the following kinds of animals right away. Entries for them > appear in the tree below, with "#nnnn" in place of a gismu. > > 1) Crustacea (lobsters, shrimp): existing lujvo are shell-spider > (but all arthropods have shells) and claw-spider, extending "spider" > to mean "any non-Insecta in Arthropoda". > > 2) Orthoptera (grasshoppers, locusts, crickets): no existing lujvo > that I know of. These insects are major pests and as such economically > important in many agricultural regions. > > 3) Coleoptera (beetles): no existing lujvo that I know of. Perhaps > beetles are just the default kind of insect (most insect, indeed most > animal, species are beetles). > > 4) Cetacea (whales, dolphins): the usual lujvo is mammal-fish or > fish-mammal, which I consider to be a dreadful submission to > folk taxonomy. > > 5) Chiroptera (bats): the usual lujvo are things like flying-mouse and > bird-mammal, which I think are even worse than fish-mammal. > > Of course there are lots of animals which aren't included under any of > these forms, but they tend to be obscure critters that can be handled > with le'avla. > > Comments? > I suggest new gismu at least when there is no existing gismu for the next higher level in the heirarchy. Under no circumstances should a lone gismu be used at two levels, i.e. #0001 cannot be derived from jukni. > Invertebrata:Mollusca #0006 I'd add this group here because it contains quite many economically important animals from oysters to squids. #0006 : new gismu > Invertebrata:Arthropoda:Arachnida jukni spider arachnid crustacean crab lobster > Invertebrata:Arthropoda:Crustacea: #0001 crustacean crab lobster shrimp #0001 : new gismu > Invertebrata:Arthropoda:Insecta cinki insect arthropod bug beetle > Invertebrata:Arthropoda:Insecta:Coleoptera #0002 beetle ladybug #0002 : new gismu (or lujvo derived from cinki: ? cakcinki , jarcinki ) > Invertebrata:Arthropoda:Insecta:Orthoptera #0003 grasshopper locust cricket #0003 : new gismu ((or lujvo derived from cinki: ??? pipcinki )) (I can't make a satisfactory lujvo) > Vertebrata:Mammalia mabru mammal 'animal' beast > Vertebrata:Mammalia:Cetacea #0004 whale dolphin orca #0004 : new gismu / lujvo: ? xasymabru , jaurmabru (NB. xasymabru doesn't exactly fit Amazonian river dolphins but I don't think a single minor exception matters very much.) > Vertebrata:Mammalia:Chiroptera #0005 bat #0005 : lujvo: ? na'irmabru , voirmabru (bats are hardly important enough to rate a gismu) It isn't too easy to make satisfactory 2-component lujvo for groups of animals, i.e. lujvo which are both reasonably understandable and avoid most erroneous connotations - but longer ones are unwieldy and we can't have gismu for everything. co'o mi'e veion ------------------------------------------------------------------ Veijo Vilva vilva@viikki21.helsinki.fi