[Previous by date - PhyloCode]
[Next by date - Re: PhyloCode]
[Previous by subject - PhyloCode]
[Next by subject - PhyloCode]
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 00:59:11 -0500
From: [unknown]
To: phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: PhyloCode
I have a new proposal that perhaps everyone can agree with. To have i= t be that the official PhyloCode organization insist that the wording in Dictionaries wherever the Thanksgiving Day clause applies should stat= e that the definition includes all of the descendents. If this is done the Thanksgiving day clause's objective will be fulfilled. What do you sa= y? ----- Original Message ----- =46rom: "Yisrael Asper" <yisraelasper@comcast.net> > ...I will retract my insistence for my original proposal wherever a > Thanksgiving Day > qualification is added to words PhyloCode redefines namely a qualif= ication > saying that you are giving a more general definition of a word but = that is > not how people would understand it if they were told the word ordin= arily. > For other words whenever a would be PhyloCode definition for a word= would > otherwise differ from a definition already accepted even from Phylo= Code that > new term is to be made instead with the otherwise old name being de= clared > from 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 official > 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 a= re served > a T Rex (I can't say Trex I see as it wouldn't be understood. So mu= ch for > heresy with this), due to the Thanksgiving Day qualification we cou= ld 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= with > that? >