Re: [lojban] curnu

[Pierre Abbat <phma@bezitopo.org>]

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". 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 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.