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".