[jbovlaste] Re: le'axru dinsauru

[Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 3:56 PM, komfo,amonan <komfoamonan@gmail.com> wrote:
>> From: "komfo,amonan" <komfoamonan@gmail.com>
>> To: jbovlaste@lojban.org
>> Sent: Fri, March 5, 2010 3:23:19 PM
>> Subject: [jbovlaste] Re: le'axru dinsauru
>> > > 2) dinsauru(dinosaur)
>> > >
>> > > x1 is a dinosaur of type x2
>>
>>
>> Isn't the x2 of organism brivla usually "species/breed"?
>>
>> But dinosaurs are just too broad a category (further up the heirarchy) for
>> x2 to be species/breed.
>> They are a 'superorder' with suborders which themselves are divided into
>> infraorders, then families.
>> Also they are a subdivision of an infraclass.  In other words, it's just
>> too complicated and that is why
>> I suggested just 'type'.
>
> Both {mabru} and {respa} have the "species/breed" x2. I guess I can see the
> argument for both sides, but I do have an soft spot for "making place
> structures as easy to memorize as possible".

  I think this is really an argument without much distinction.  There
is really no reason just to say "species/breed/type" because, really,
no matter how you define it, any specifier can be reasonably used in
x2 without confusion on the part of the listener.  If it's a species,
they'll think of it as species.  If it's an order, theyll think of it
as an order.  If it's "herbivore" or "flyer", etc. they'll think of it
as type...  QED


                   --gejyspa