- Home
- Get A Printable Dictionary
- Search Best Words
- Recent Changes
- How You Can Help
- valsi - All
- valsi - Preferred Only
- natlang - All
- natlang - Preferred Only
- Languages
- XML Export
- user Listing
- Report Bugs
- Utilities
- Status
- Help
- Admin Request
- Create Account
|
Discussion of "serlaxi"
[parent]
[root]
Comment #1:
Connotations
|
Curtis W Franks (Fri Mar 25 03:48:38 2016)
|
While this definition says that it is synonymous with that of "serlaximorfa", I propose the following: Pursuant to my philosophy that zi'evla which are derived directly from taxonomic nomenclature and which match it as well as Lojban grammar allows, especially those for which this derivation is clear, should mean "x_1 is a member of [taxon], being of subtaxon x2" (possibly with a third terbri for the standard of definition/classification), "serlaximorfa should take this role (where the relevant taxon is Selachimorpha) where?s this word should be more generic and apply to anything which may be called a shark (even colloquially) without any assertion as to scientific classification and where the standard is understood to be an agreement between the utterer and the audience (with the former dominating). This will typically be approximately equivalent to taxon Chondrichthyes, but it need not be so. In this way, this word would be far more like "finpe" and the other Lojban gismu (and some other zi'evla). If my philosophy is generally adopted, especially with the third terbri, the actual denotations of the words could differ, although they would remain obviously closely related.
|
-
Comment #2:
Re: Connotations
|
Curtis W Franks (Fri Mar 25 03:53:05 2016)
|
Notes/edits:
> definition/classification), "serlaximorfa should take this role (where
I forgot to close my quote. Treat the quote symbol as the word "zo" here (but not necessarily elsewhere).
> the relevant taxon is Selachimorpha) where?s this word should be more
This should read (with) "whereas".
|
-
|
Comment #3:
Re: Connotations
|
gleki (Fri Mar 25 06:54:09 2016)
|
krtisfranks wrote: > While this definition says that it is synonymous with that of > "serlaximorfa", I propose the following: Pursuant to my philosophy that
> zi'evla which are derived directly from taxonomic nomenclature and which > match it as well as Lojban grammar allows, especially those for which this > derivation is clear, should mean "x_1 is a member of [taxon], being of > subtaxon x2" (possibly with a third terbri for the standard of > definition/classification), "serlaximorfa should take this role (where > the relevant taxon is Selachimorpha) where?s this word should be more > generic and apply to anything which may be called a shark (even > colloquially) without any assertion as to scientific classification and > where the standard is understood to be an agreement between the utterer and > the audience (with the former dominating). This will typically be > approximately equivalent to taxon Chondrichthyes, but it need not be so. In > this way, this word would be far more like "finpe" and the other Lojban
> gismu (and some other zi'evla). If my philosophy is generally adopted, > especially with the third terbri, the actual denotations of the words could > differ, although they would remain obviously closely related.
I'm opposed to making any nomenclature basic.
We have folk nomenclature like that of curnu, we have copies of neo-Linnaean that is official modern-days scientific nomenclature, we may have creationists' nomenclature and we may have something purely Lojbanic like tirxu.
So serlaxi is more like tirxu.
For Lojbanizing Linnaean names a precise mechanism should be devised preferably making conversion back from Lojban into Latin unambiguous like ROT13. I'm not sure whether that is possible unless we use pseudo-rafsi prefixes.
Something like xondrixtiie would do for now IMO.
|
-
Comment #4:
Re: Connotations
|
Curtis W Franks (Fri Mar 25 10:42:47 2016)
|
gleki wrote: > krtisfranks wrote: > > While this definition says that it is synonymous with that of > > "serlaximorfa", I propose the following: Pursuant to my philosophy that > > > zi'evla which are derived directly from taxonomic nomenclature and which > > match it as well as Lojban grammar allows, especially those for which > this > > derivation is clear, should mean "x_1 is a member of [taxon], being of > > subtaxon x2" (possibly with a third terbri for the standard of > > definition/classification), "serlaximorfa should take this role (where > > the relevant taxon is Selachimorpha) where?s this word should be more > > generic and apply to anything which may be called a shark (even > > colloquially) without any assertion as to scientific classification and
> > where the standard is understood to be an agreement between the utterer
> and > > the audience (with the former dominating). This will typically be > > approximately equivalent to taxon Chondrichthyes, but it need not be so. > In > > this way, this word would be far more like "finpe" and the other Lojban > > > gismu (and some other zi'evla). If my philosophy is generally adopted, > > especially with the third terbri, the actual denotations of the words > could > > differ, although they would remain obviously closely related. > > > I'm opposed to making any nomenclature basic.
You will have to explain what you mean by that.
> > We have folk nomenclature like that of curnu, we have copies of > neo-Linnaean that is official modern-days scientific nomenclature, we may
> have creationists' nomenclature and we may have something purely Lojbanic
> like tirxu. > > So serlaxi is more like tirxu.
I can agree that "serlaxi" is/should be more like "tirxe" than "serlaximorfa" is. In particular, the former is/should be more colloquial/laic. There are some differences (most notably the additional terbri).
> > For Lojbanizing Linnaean names a precise mechanism should be devised > preferably making conversion back from Lojban into Latin unambiguous like
> ROT13. I'm not sure whether that is possible unless we use pseudo-rafsi > prefixes.
I would like to work on such a project. I think that we can make guidelines that work often, and then there might be exceptional cases that cannot be mapped blindly. "serlaximorfa" is actually such a word: the taxon's name is actually "Selachimorpha", without the first "r".
> > Something like xondrixtiie would do for now IMO.
I agree.
|
-
Comment #5:
Re: Connotations
|
gleki (Fri Mar 25 10:56:32 2016)
|
krtisfranks wrote: > gleki wrote:
> > I'm opposed to making any nomenclature basic. > > You will have to explain what you mean by that.
ue oise'i.
I'm opposed to making any decisions regarding more appropriate or less appropriate nomenclatures. They all have their reasoning.
> > For Lojbanizing Linnaean names a precise mechanism should be devised > > preferably making conversion back from Lojban into Latin unambiguous like > > > ROT13. I'm not sure whether that is possible unless we use pseudo-rafsi
> > prefixes. > > I would like to work on such a project. I think that we can make guidelines > that work often, and then there might be exceptional cases that cannot be
> mapped blindly. "serlaximorfa" is actually such a word: the taxon's name > is actually "Selachimorpha", without the first "r".
it could be tselaximorfa under la snura ideology.
https://mw.lojban.org/papri/Rule:_respect_the_form_of_words
But again it won't restore Selachimorpha back. Even these x and f. How do you know they were "ch" and "ph", why not "kh"/"h" and "f"?
|
-
|
|
|
Comment #6:
Re: Connotations
|
Jonathan (Sat Mar 26 01:30:32 2016)
|
Interesting observation. It's similar to the problem I raised with braxiiura and how common use of "crab" includes species not within the infraorder Brachyura, thus my coinage of karkino.
|
-
|
|
|