- 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 "reltranyselcy'anmona'yborbi'okemymulslemijyji'e"
[parent]
[root]
Comment #2:
Is it an organelle or a eukaryotic cell?
|
Curtis W Franks (Thu Apr 25 04:02:30 2024)
|
Organelles, to my knowledge, exist only in eukaryotic cells, but there is nonetheless a difference between the cell itself/as a whole and one of its organelles. My reading says that nitroplasts are the organelle, not the cell which possesses the said organelle. As such, I am not sure that "mulslemijyji'e" is appropriate. Maybe "ji'eslerango"?
(Note: I think that "rango" is better than "pagbu" for this purpose because organization is implied by "organelle" but not necessarily by "part", and prokaryotic cells do have parts even if they are not fully organized. Even RNA is an organized part, but is not an organelle and is not centralized in a prokaryotic cell. Meanwhile "rango", while glossed as "organ" need not be constrained to the English laïc meaning or a jargon meaning of the term; in fact, it should not be so, given that it is a gismu. I am okay with generalizing or analogizing the Lojban word to cells (and even nonbiological bodies, while we are at it).
|
-
Comment #4:
Re: Is it an organelle or a eukaryotic cell?
|
evie (Thu Apr 25 04:34:17 2024)
|
krtisfranks wrote: > Organelles, to my knowledge, exist only in eukaryotic cells, but there is > nonetheless a difference between the cell itself/as a whole and one of its > organelles. My reading says that nitroplasts are the organelle, not the > cell which possesses the said organelle. As such, I am not sure that > "mulslemijyji'e" is appropriate. Maybe "ji'eslerango"? > > (Note: I think that "rango" is better than "pagbu" for this purpose > because organization is implied by "organelle" but not necessarily by > "part", and prokaryotic cells do have parts even if they are not fully > organized. Even RNA is an organized part, but is not an organelle and is > not centralized in a prokaryotic cell. Meanwhile "rango", while glossed as > "organ" need not be constrained to the English laïc meaning or a jargon > meaning of the term; in fact, it should not be so, given that it is a > gismu. I am okay with generalizing or analogizing the Lojban word to cells > (and even nonbiological bodies, while we are at it).
i'm not a biologist but the thread at https://twitter.com/sailorrooscout/status/1781701469160264040 seems to suggest there is now a eukaryote capable of nitogen fixing; but maybe i misinterpreted
|
-
Comment #5:
Re: Is it an organelle or a eukaryotic cell?
|
Curtis W Franks (Thu Apr 25 05:22:50 2024)
|
merrybot wrote: > krtisfranks wrote: > > Organelles, to my knowledge, exist only in eukaryotic cells, but there > is > > nonetheless a difference between the cell itself/as a whole and one of > its > > organelles. My reading says that nitroplasts are the organelle, not the > > cell which possesses the said organelle. As such, I am not sure that > > "mulslemijyji'e" is appropriate. Maybe "ji'eslerango"? > > > > (Note: I think that "rango" is better than "pagbu" for this purpose > > because organization is implied by "organelle" but not necessarily by > > "part", and prokaryotic cells do have parts even if they are not fully > > organized. Even RNA is an organized part, but is not an organelle and is > > not centralized in a prokaryotic cell. Meanwhile "rango", while glossed > as > > "organ" need not be constrained to the English laïc meaning or a jargon > > meaning of the term; in fact, it should not be so, given that it is a > > gismu. I am okay with generalizing or analogizing the Lojban word to > cells > > (and even nonbiological bodies, while we are at it). > > > i'm not a biologist but the thread at > https://twitter.com/sailorrooscout/status/1781701469160264040 seems to > suggest there is now a eukaryote capable of nitogen fixing; but maybe i > misinterpreted
After a quick skim, it seems like biologists originally thought that it was a cell which did the fixation, but now believe that it is an organelle which does it. I propose that we regloss this word as "nitrogen-fixing cell / cell which contains or performs the nitrogen-fixing function of nitroplasts (regardless of its possessing an organelle which is dedicated to such purpose)" and then create another word for the proposed organelle. That way, we do not oass judgment on nor interpret the science, but cover both bases - have our ammonia cake and eat it too, so to speak.
Also, I fell prey to a tolsmabru. I intended "ji'erslerango".
|
-
|
|
|
|