|
gleki wrote:
> krtisfranks wrote:
> > I would prefer a fu'ivla. Nylon has become a generic word for the
> material
> > and it could be useful to have such a brivla (similar to silka and
its
> > ilk). Also, the compound/substance "nylonase" could benefit in its
> > translation if we have such a brivla.
>
> The same question as for Higgs bozone. Do you have a complete algorithm
of
> how to Lojbanize physico-chemical nomenclature?
>
> The attempts by far have been mostly cunso, not just mutilating the form
> of the original world-wide accepted terms but mutilating them in a new
> direction with every new contributor.
>
> Specifically for this case X-ase is a non-polysemous suffix denoting a
> protein that can destruct X. Will the form of both "X" and "-ase" be
> retained the same throughout all enzymes?
>
> Or it will deviate from this rule here and there always bowing its head
to
> self-segregating morphology thus making Lojban terminology less cleancut
> than the international one?
Absolutely a good point. I think that that should be the Lojban
community's next big , long-term project. We must be systematically and
algorithmically compatible with IUPAC conventions. And I really want
words for fullerenes and graphene, but must wait until then!
The same goes with biology. And maybe the IPA for linguistics.
In principle, the same applies for any international/"official" systematic
naming convention. Unfortunately, physics names are pretty whimsical and
ad hoc, as far as I can tell, excepting a few affixes and compound words
built from well-established but no less capricious names of related or
emergent phenomena. For example, the main lepton name series is
"electron", "muon",
tau(on)" - essentially no pattern exists, despite the flavours basically
expressing the same underlying "thing"; quarks are even worse, besides
sort of being paired in "opposites" within each generation, and that is
not even accounting for leptons in the very same generation! Fundamental
bosons are just as bad. In the case of quantum mechanics, we can follow
suit, or we can actually build up a system of our own (which could be a
fun a project!), identifying underlying features that can classify
expressions of given "entities".
|