From minots@xxxxx.xxxx Mon Apr 5 14:45:09 1999
X-Digest-Num: 105
Message-ID: <44114.105.577.959273824@eGroups.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 1999 16:45:09 -0500
From: John Minot <minots@xxxxx.xxxx
Subject: Re: semantics ...

la lojbab pu benji
> But not all do this. Thus my sister-in-law, an artist and serious nature
> lover, seems to attribute to "animal" the exclusion of birds (this led to
> an awkward semantics argument one day). It might be for her that "animal"
> is synonymous with "mammal" or even with "beast" (I never thought to ask
> her whether a lizard or a bat was an "animal".)

On this subject, you might want to look at the Cambridge Encyclopedia of
Language (u'ucai, I don't have it with me and can't find the page
number). It had a small box discussing the curiousity in English of
multiple meanings of the word 'animal' (in nonscientific discourse, of
course). It showed a chart something like this:

Plants	Animals
/ \
Non-mammals Animals
/ \
Humans Animals


co'o be'i la djan maynat