From mathmaniac@hanmail.net Tue May 27 03:27:29 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: mathmaniac@hanmail.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 95746 invoked from network); 27 May 2003 10:27:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 27 May 2003 10:27:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n8.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.92) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 27 May 2003 10:27:28 -0000 Received: from [66.218.67.158] by n8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 27 May 2003 10:27:28 -0000 Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 10:27:28 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Symbiosis and related topics Message-ID: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 3580 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "sshiskom" X-Originating-IP: 143.248.205.98 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122399845 X-Yahoo-Profile: sshiskom X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 19923 Symbiosis and related topics fi'e la sanxiyn. ---- Definition First, I think I need to define my use of "Symbiosis". My use of the word is based on "symbiosis", Encyclopaedia Britannica. http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=72552 I note that it is not accessible in its entirety if you are not a member... Hmm. To cite: "any of several living arrangements between members of two different species, including mutualism, commensalism, and parasitism". The article do note that "symbiosis" is often equated with "mutualism", but that's a quirk of English usage. Let's forgot it. ---- Other language's solution And let me introduce some CJK calques: U+5171 U+751F (gongsaeng) literally "joint life", thus symbiosis. U+76F8 U+5229 U+5171 U+751F (sangligongsaeng) literally "reciprocally profitable joint life", thus mutualism. U+7247 U+5229 U+5171 U+751F (pyeonligongsaneng) literally "unilaterally profitable joint life", thus commensalism. U+5BC4, U+751F (gisaeng) literally "dependent life", thus parasitism. ---- On technical terms Note that these are technical, domain-specific terms. Etymology just doesn't matter. Once decided(standardized), they just mean what their English counterpart means. I think it is about the same in English, too. What is the difference between "mutual" and "commensal" in normal usages? If my understanding is correct, "commensalism" does not mean that the arrangement is commensal: it just means what it is. (I am not specialized in this area! Do not ask me how _exactly_ commensalism is defined.) ---- Lojban coinages Now, my rendering of above calques into Lojban: gunma jmive (gumji'e) x1 is symbiotic system, composed of symbionts x2. simxu xamgu (simxau) x1 is a set of mutually beneficial members x2. - My first idea was to use {prali}, but not sure how to use it. na'e simxu xamgu (nalsimxau) x1 is a set of other than mutually (i.e. one-way) beneficial members x2. ---- On rendering of "unilateral" "unilateral" is tough. G. Dyke suggested "pavyfartcu" and "nalcajytcu" for "unilateral dependency", so I take it as his suggesting of {pa farna} and {na'e canja} for "unilateral". But I cannot make anything out of {pa farna}, and {na'e canja} sounds "non-commercial (agent)". Ok, perhaps "ray", in the mathematical sense, {pa farna tcena}, but "line" {re farna tcena}. That's what I can make of {pa farna}. So I suggest {nalsimxu}, for {simxu} is "mutual", which is a very nice gismu, I think. ---- On use of {jmive} for "organism" G. Dyke wrote: > Something can still be organic after death. Which is jmive to be? > Alive, or organic. I vote for "organic", since we already have > tolmorsi for alive. One more vote for this idea, although using {tolmorsi} for "alive" sounds as strange as "malbona" for "bad". But is there really no gismu for the concept of "organic"? If so, isn't it a BIG hall? ---- Parasitism is not unilateral dependency Yes, the title says all. A fetus is unilaterally dependent on its mother, but not a parasite. (Ok, you *may* say so, but it is not the normal meaning.) Then, what characterizes parasitism? After some thought, my conclusion is "harmfulness". x1 is parasitic on x2, if and only if x1 is dependent on x2 and x1 harms x2. This was implicit on CJK wording -- which is understandable, since they are not Lojban! Unilaterality doesn't play an important role here. By the way, {nitcu} is not reciprocal. x1 nitcu x2 does not imply x2 nitcu x1. Therefore: xrani nitcu (xaitcu) x1 is harmfully dependent on x2, i.e. x1 is parasitic on x2. ---- mu'o mi'e sanxiyn.