[Previous by date - RE:PhyloCode]
[Next by date - Re: PhyloCode]
[Previous by subject - Re: PhyloCode]
[Next by subject - Re: PhyloCode]
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 00:01:04 -0500
From: [unknown]
To: phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Re: PhyloCode
I am referring to speech as found in dictionaries. The makers of dictionaries comb out what is ordinary and also specialized speech. Y= ou rejecting the word birds as unscientific is a perfect example. Dictio= naries give various definitions including also the scientific ones. If a bir= d comes to be known as a living therapod it would not violate the meaning of = the word bird as people understand it. Officially defining a dinosaur as = a class of animals that includes what would be known to a layman as a bird is= a redefining of the word dinosaur and so should entail rejecting the wo= rd dinosaur as unscientific and making a new word inclusive of both livi= ng and nonliving therapods. Yisrael ----- Original Message ----- From: StephanPickering@cs.com To: yisraelasper@comcast.net Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2005 9:35 PM Subject: Re: PhyloCode Just what do you mean by "ordinary person"? This, on the quantum mechanical level, has no meaning..."birds" are "dinosaurs", and the f= ormer cannot be defined without the latter. Thus, I reject the "bird" word = as nonscientific, and, in everyday speech (whatever that entails), I spe= ak of "living theropods". Dinosaurily, Stephan P STEPHAN PICKERING / Chofetz Chayim ben-Avraham The Dinosaur Fractals Project 1840 41st Avenue # 102 Capitola, California 95010-2527 USAmerika stephanpickering@cs.com website: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/paleo_bio_dinosaur_ontology theropod research summarized: Reference Base, Pickering, at <www.dinodata.net> IN PROGRESS: Alfred Russel Wallace's KING KONG: the semioptics of W= illis O'Brien