I like "-selcy-" here, though.

Comment #3: Re: We need to standardize how zevla rafsi work.

evie (Thu Apr 25 04:32:10 2024)

krtisfranks wrote: > I like "-selcy-" here, though. it is standardized, the -sle- version parses in https://latkerlo.com/jvotci-test/ but jvs doesn't like it

Comment #6: Re: We need to standardize how zevla rafsi work. Curtis W Franks (Thu Apr 25 05:37:07 2024) merrybot wrote: > krtisfranks wrote: > > I like "-selcy-" here, though. > > > it is standardized, the -sle- version parses in > https://latkerlo.com/jvotci-test/ but jvs doesn't like it What is the difference between the brarafsi for the single zevla *"sle'anmo" and the ordered concatenation of "-sle-" (cmarafsi for gismu "selci") and zevla *"anmo"? Comment #8: Re: We need to standardize how zevla rafsi work. evie (Thu Apr 25 12:57:09 2024) krtisfranks wrote: > merrybot wrote: > > krtisfranks wrote: > > > I like "-selcy-" here, though. > > > > > > it is standardized, the -sle- version parses in > > https://latkerlo.com/jvotci-test/ but jvs doesn't like it > > > What is the difference between the brarafsi for the single zevla > *"sle'anmo" and the ordered concatenation of "-sle-" (cmarafsi for gismu > "selci") and zevla *"anmo"? it would be -sle'y'anmona'y-

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".

I really like this word, but we need to make sure to note that it is
non-precedential in several regards, mostly relating to chemistry. We just
do not want to box ourselves in for this one word. It should be subject to
future revision based on future Lojban standards, conventions, and patches
which address at least the following issues.

First, some people use constructs of form 'number rafsi + atomic group
gismu (or zevla) rafsi' not for formula expression, as is done here
("reltrano" here means "N₂, diatomic nitrogren"), but instead for
indicating which element in that group is meant (so "reltrano" would mean
"phosphorus"). We need to determine a standard.

Second, ".anmona" would be a slightly unusual compound name, and we may
want to make it formulaic, even though "ammon-" is standardized by IUPAC.

Third, we need to distinguish between a string which is like
"reltranyselcy'anmona" such that the diatomic nitrogen and ammonia are
treated as separate terms and a similar string such that they are treated
as a single compound ("ultranitrogenous ammonia" or something; even if it
is not chemically possible, the word could describe the concept and the
rules for interpretation should be regular).

The preceding three issues would be addressed if/when any of us,
eventually, actually gets around to translating IUPAC nomenclature
standards into Lojban.

Fourth, Lojban generally would benefit from a way of specifying "this
veljvo seltau goes into the nth sumti slot of the veljvo tertau", for each
positive integer n.

(Notice that the first and fourth points combine in an especially nasty
way for veljvo involving numbers and "ratni").

I think that I had other concerns, but I forgot them and this list is
enough to be getting by on, for now.

Comment #9: Re: Non-precedential

evie (Thu Apr 25 13:41:07 2024)

krtisfranks wrote: > I really like this word, but we need to make sure to note that it is > non-precedential in several regards, mostly relating to chemistry. We just > do not want to box ourselves in for this one word. It should be subject to > future revision based on future Lojban standards, conventions, and patches > which address at least the following issues. > > First, some people use constructs of form 'number rafsi + atomic group > gismu (or zevla) rafsi' not for formula expression, as is done here > ("reltrano" here means "N2, diatomic nitrogren"), but instead for > indicating which element in that group is meant (so "reltrano" would mean > "phosphorus"). We need to determine a standard. > > Second, ".anmona" would be a slightly unusual compound name, and we may > want to make it formulaic, even though "ammon-" is standardized by IUPAC. > > Third, we need to distinguish between a string which is like > "reltranyselcy'anmona" such that the diatomic nitrogen and ammonia are > treated as separate terms and a similar string such that they are treated > as a single compound ("ultranitrogenous ammonia" or something; even if it > is not chemically possible, the word could describe the concept and the > rules for interpretation should be regular). > > The preceding three issues would be addressed if/when any of us, > eventually, actually gets around to translating IUPAC nomenclature > standards into Lojban. > > Fourth, Lojban generally would benefit from a way of specifying "this > veljvo seltau goes into the nth sumti slot of the veljvo tertau", for each > positive integer n. > > (Notice that the first and fourth points combine in an especially nasty > way for veljvo involving numbers and "ratni"). > > I think that I had other concerns, but I forgot them and this list is > enough to be getting by on, for now. 1. huh interesting 2. the anmona entry has existed since 2017 3. there is a -bor- after the anmona to glue it to the binxo 4. agree