|
krtisfranks wrote:
> gleki wrote:
> > krtisfranks wrote:
> > > Should this refer to any member of family Gekkota or just those of
> them
> > > which are typically thought of as "geckos" (belimbed lizards, for a
> > > start)?
> >
> >
> > i would think more of Gekkonidae, but okay let it be Gekkota
>
> I would probably prefer Gekkonidae. I know that Lojban usually aims for
> maximal semantic domain of reference, but I think that usefulness
> dominates in this case. Gekkota can get its own word. (Or, this word can
> be vague and each biological category can get its own word. It would
> introduce some redundancy though, compensated for by predictability
> perhaps. I still stick to my aforementioned preference.)
We don't have a good rafsi for reptiles (respr- makes my tongue tied) and
for marsupials. Thus dalgeko and dalko'ala but cpikakadu.
srigeko would be gecko tape.
For Gekkonidae dalgekonida, for Geckota dalgekota.
Shall we make ae=>a rule official? Shall we start writing down
Linnaean=>Lojban, QuantumPhysics=>Lojban rules after all?
I prefer CCV- prefixes (and brodr- type prefixes but ofc. less since it's
hard to pronounce syllabic -r- for a lot fo people) because this allows to
preserve the original form of words and thus make memorizing thousands of
words easier.
For elementary particles i consider using normalized suffixes as again it
would save the form of terms better (but i wish to have a full table of
all particles may be something like this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:E6GUT.svg but i think it should be
multidimensional so that we easier understand how make a compromise
between the full "table" of particles and traditional nomenclature.
Chemical nomenclature is a separate beast. May be just cmevla-ize there
everything paunai? "eth-an-ol" is a lujvo but not lojbanizable without
losing recognizability.
|