From lojbab@lojban.org Thu Oct 04 09:13:40 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 4 Oct 2001 16:13:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 89915 invoked from network); 4 Oct 2001 16:13:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by 10.1.1.222 with QMQP; 4 Oct 2001 16:13:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO stmpy-4.cais.net) (205.252.14.74) by mta2 with SMTP; 4 Oct 2001 16:13:40 -0000 Received: from bob.lojban.org (187.dynamic.cais.com [207.226.56.187]) by stmpy-4.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f94GDa477434 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 12:13:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20011004120231.00dade40@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: vir1036@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 12:10:04 -0400 To: Subject: Re: [lojban] spatnrosace Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" Having sent the following, the topic came up in Auxlang with useful corroberation >There is no need to learn a zillion fu'ivla (type IV nonetheless and >therefore meaningless to any other person who hasn't memorized the same >list as you) to make the distinctions that people want to make in everyday >speech. For the distinctions used in scientific discussions, the proper >approach is the one that English scientists use along with most others in >the world: type I fu'ivla "la'o spat. Spiraeoidae spat." la'o was put >into the language specifically to avoid the need to solve the unsolvable >Linnean binomial problem. (If some particular species are being used a >lot in a paper or in a particular lab environment, the appropriate >solution is to use names - type 2 fu'ivla or any of the anaphoric >solutions. Type 3 fu'ivla are used when jargon is common enough to pass >between fields and there is risk that two different jargon-using groups >will fail to understand each other. Type 4 fu'ivla make sense only when a >word is being used so often that it will be the sort of word that >non-technical people would be expected to know and identify without context. The following appeared in auxlang >Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 11:48:17 +0300 >From: Risto Kupsala >Subject: Universal scientific vocabulary > > > Samuel Rivier wrote: > > do you have opinions on greek being a universal > > vocabulary source? Does every language have the word > > acrophobia as part of its vocabulary? > >Phobia is definitely widely recognized word. > > > There are certain terms used scientifically that I > > feel should be borrowed into an IAL, such as canis for > > dog (canis lupus), agora for public forum > > (agoraphobia), and maybe tyrannus for emporer > > (tyrannosaurus rex) > >Some biologists have the opinion that the common people >should be educated to call animals with their two-word >latin names. >So, for example, instead of saying "dog", "hund", "cane", >etc. everybody would say "canis lupus" in every country >(and perhaps the accepted short form would be "canis"). >This would work well in Europe because many languages are >already affected by Latin to great extent. >Here's an article supporting the idea: >http://saltaquarium.about.com/library/weekly/aa100600.htm The article is worth reading and argues my position far better than I have, and gives relevant examples of where one might want to use a common (i.e. lojbanized) name when one is not concerned about being exact as to the species. lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org