gleki wrote: > krtisfranks wrote: > > While this definition says that it is synonymous with that of > > "serlaximorfa", I propose the following: Pursuant to my philosophy that > > > zi'evla which are derived directly from taxonomic nomenclature and which > > match it as well as Lojban grammar allows, especially those for which > this > > derivation is clear, should mean "x_1 is a member of [taxon], being of > > subtaxon x2" (possibly with a third terbri for the standard of > > definition/classification), "serlaximorfa should take this role (where > > the relevant taxon is Selachimorpha) where?s this word should be more > > generic and apply to anything which may be called a shark (even > > colloquially) without any assertion as to scientific classification and
> > where the standard is understood to be an agreement between the utterer
> and > > the audience (with the former dominating). This will typically be > > approximately equivalent to taxon Chondrichthyes, but it need not be so. > In > > this way, this word would be far more like "finpe" and the other Lojban > > > gismu (and some other zi'evla). If my philosophy is generally adopted, > > especially with the third terbri, the actual denotations of the words > could > > differ, although they would remain obviously closely related. > > > I'm opposed to making any nomenclature basic.
You will have to explain what you mean by that.
> > We have folk nomenclature like that of curnu, we have copies of > neo-Linnaean that is official modern-days scientific nomenclature, we may
> have creationists' nomenclature and we may have something purely Lojbanic
> like tirxu. > > So serlaxi is more like tirxu.
I can agree that "serlaxi" is/should be more like "tirxe" than "serlaximorfa" is. In particular, the former is/should be more colloquial/laic. There are some differences (most notably the additional terbri).
> > For Lojbanizing Linnaean names a precise mechanism should be devised > preferably making conversion back from Lojban into Latin unambiguous like
> ROT13. I'm not sure whether that is possible unless we use pseudo-rafsi > prefixes.
I would like to work on such a project. I think that we can make guidelines that work often, and then there might be exceptional cases that cannot be mapped blindly. "serlaximorfa" is actually such a word: the taxon's name is actually "Selachimorpha", without the first "r".
> > Something like xondrixtiie would do for now IMO.
I agree.
|