[Previous by date - Re: PhyloCode]
[Next by date - PhyloCode]
[Previous by subject - PhyloCode]
[Next by subject - PhyloCode]
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 16:55:02 -0500
Thank you for your response. If you codify scientific jargon so that = you are insistent that a particular wording should be the official scientific definition it will influence the dictionaries automatically. Dictiona= ries are not perfect. They will however be smart enough to notice with the scientific community insistent on a particular authorized wording as = the official scientific definition to note that there will sometimes thou= gh by no means always be a discrepancy between common usage and less common= usage. Like asking for milk and getting camel's milk when you asked for milk= . Even though both are milk still the more general and scientific definition= is not one commonly meant among English speakers. So again I say to have it = be that the official PhyloCode organization insist that the wording in Dictio= naries wherever the Thanksgiving Day clause applies should state that the definition includes all of the descendents. If you do that the public= can be won over. Are there some proposals to eliminate species as a category= in PhyloCode thus generalizing even more living beings? As far as T Rex = I was noticing for the first time that I cannot combine every word's letter= s since Trex would not sound like T Rex unlike the word e mail which can be w= ritten as email. Yisrael P.S. An example of a definition which has to be taken with a grain of= salt I discovered just today where an online dictionary said a planet is sma= ller than asteroids. In our solar system perhaps not true, more so not to = be assumed in others perhaps. ----- Original Message ----- =46rom: "David Marjanovic" <email@example.com> To: "PML" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 1:55 PM Subject: Re: PhyloCode > >I have a new proposal that perhaps everyone can agree with. To hav= e it be > > that the official PhyloCode organization insist that the wording = in > > Dictionaries wherever the Thanksgiving Day clause applies should = state > > that > > the definition includes all of the descendents. If this is done t= he > > Thanksgiving day clause's objective will be fulfilled. What do yo= u say? > > I don't think we could have much of an influence on dictionaries. Scientific > jargon is scientific jargon, and the English language is the Englis= h > language. We're not trying to change the English or any other langu= age, > we're trying to codify scientific jargon. > > >> a T Rex (I can't say Trex I see as it wouldn't be understood. So= much for > >> heresy with this), > > I don't understand. Do you mean the spelling (which is *T. rex*, in italics > instead of with asterisks)? > > >> P.S. Humans are Homo Sapiens Sapiens. > > *Homo sapiens sapiens*. > > >> What is PhyloCode going to do with that? > > Probably this will stay as it is, with the difference that *Homo* w= on't be a > genus anymore. However, the rules for species names -- as opposed t= o clade > names -- are being written right now. Currently some 15 different proposals > exist. We'll see...