- 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 #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"?
|
-
|
|
|
|