[Previous by date - Re: PhyloCode]
[Next by date - PhyloCode]
[Previous by subject - PhyloCode]
[Next by subject - PhyloCode]
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 19:32:18 -0500
From: [unknown]
To: phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: PhyloCode
Your right dictionaries are only human (a subspecies called Homo Sapi= ens Dictionarius to be exact) and I find that you have to use different o= nes and take them with a grain of salt. It's like learning an alphabet withou= t hearing how it sounds. Dictionaries are useful and human like scienti= sts only their made out of paper (I mean the dictionaries hopefully not t= he scientists). Your right about the diversity in species naming. Ask a = layman what's a particular kind of fish and you are going to get a regional = answer unscientific not incorrect just unscientific and therefore not the mo= st official and general usage. Languages themselves are very interesting= as far as how we define what they are. What language did Galileo speak? Answ= er Italian. But in his day Italians from different regions could not und= erstand one another. There are two Scandinavian countries that speak the same language in that they can understand each other and yet they are list= ed as having two separate languages. Chinese is the language most spoken if= you label its written form alone a language. Which is good for nationalis= t ego but bad for two Chinese actually trying to talk to one another when o= ne of them doesn't understand "Standard " ie:Mandarin Chinese. Finally many= times it seems like Americans and British people speak two different langua= ges. Who is British? The English? Ok but it also means from the United Kin= gdom. But I digress and yet I don't. We're arguing about defining words usi= ng words already defined or perhaps not, in order to define words! Words naturally have first to be used before they can be defined. It's quit= e indefinable or shall I say undefinable when you can define a word. I = know very well that my proposal would produce arguments as to how to apply it. What's a dictionary fo= r if not for that? I thought of a new proposal to end the perhaps impasse = that has come about in the replies to my original and modified proposals. = It was inspired by your humorously expressed response which allowed me to th= ink it up using the Thanksgiving Turkey analogy of appropriately of all peop= le one of the heads of the PhyloCode (I insist on being allowed to write Phy= locode, I'm a bit of a language heretic) Dr. Kevin de Queiroz. I will retract= my insistence for my original proposal wherever a Thanksgiving Day qualification is added to words PhyloCode redefines namely a qualific= ation saying that you are giving a more general definition of a word but th= at is not how people would understand it if they were told the word ordinar= ily. For other words whenever a would be PhyloCode definition for a word w= ould otherwise differ from a definition already accepted even from PhyloCo= de that new term is to be made instead with the otherwise old name being decl= ared =66rom the point of view of PhyloCode as describing a nonexistent cat= egory. Of course deciding on when a word is redefined would be defined by the o= fficial Phylocode organization. So if we would not be able to tell someone he= is eating a Brontosaurus or whatever they call it nowadays, if they are= served a T Rex (I can't say Trex I see as it wouldn't be understood. So much= for heresy with this), due to the Thanksgiving Day qualification we could= keep the same word and say that a T Rex is a Brontosaurus. Yisrael P.S. Humans are Homo Sapiens Sapiens. What is PhyloCode going to do w= ith that? ----- Original Message ----- =46rom: "Jaime A. Headden" <qilongia@yahoo.com> To: "Yisrael Asper" <yisraelasper@comcast.net>; <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 4:03 PM Subject: Re: PhyloCode > Yisrael Asper (yisraelasper@comcast.net) wrote: > > <To an extent you are right. But the terminology gets included in > dictionaries as lets say definition #1, 2 etc. People who are not > scientists rely heavily on dictionaries. Dictionaries in turn rely > exclusively on the people. A scientific conference can get its way = in a > dictionary once it has been immediately even accepted by the people= .> > > Language is funny. Seriously. > > Take the word "dude," for example, now used in slang alliteration > without much of a concrete concept, yet not a hundred years before = it > referred to a gentleman. The presence of "dude ranches" in the Amer= ican > West were established under this old terminology before language ch= anged > the meaning gradually. > > "Evolution" had a connotation of development towards a maximum (k= nown or > unknown) or ultimate condition, such as the "evolution of life towa= rds > man" and was used primarily in explaining the progressive embryonic > development through "all the stages of life," as it has been descri= bed in > the past. The word now means something else, and perhaps something = so less > exact in meaning it requires volumes to describe it. We could as ea= sily be > using another word, but instead we use "evolution." > > There are things even in other languages that cannot be "defined"= by > those languages, such as Japanese _maru_. > > My #1 problem with dictionaries is that dictionaries are written = by > people. People make assumptions and mistakes. Dictionaries contain > assumptions and mistakes. They may not carry the weight the word br= ings in > truth, and they are made from sometimes concensus opinions, referen= ce to > older dictionaries, or regional usage. Brits and Yanks can argue on= how to > spell colour, and the word "Yank" means something different to an A= merican > or a Britishman -- or an Aussie. Tom Holtz starts his class telling= you > the difference between a moose and an elk is not what you think, de= pending > on where you're from. There's a Florida panther, cougar, and puma, = some > which actually occur as recognized subspecies of *Felis concolor* (= or > *Puma concolor*); but my dictionary says they're the same thing. Th= e > dictionary is both right and wrong. "Dinosaur" means something to t= he > layfolk it does NOT mean to those who study them, and vice versa, a= nd > lately "Reptilia" is undergoing a shift wherein phylogenic studies = are > revising how we look at groups of animals and whether names for gro= ups > should reflect their biology, or not. Then there's the vernacular f= orm > "birds," which means anything between the clades Maniraptora and th= e > common flying rat---er, pigeon, yet any person will tell you what i= s and > is not a bird if you give them a few pictures. > > Birds are like pornography, perhaps. > > Cheers, > > Jaime A. Headden > > Little steps are often the hardest to take. We are too used to m= aking leaps in the face of adversity, that a simple skip is so hard to do. = We should all learn to walk soft, walk small, see the world around us ra= ther than zoom by it. > > "Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969) > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! > http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/