[Previous by date - PhyloCode]
[Next by date - Re: PhyloCode]
[Previous by subject - PhyloCode]
[Next by subject - PhyloCode]
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 16:59:20 -0500
Sorry to the online dictionary. I meant to say an online dictionary s= aid a planet is larger than asteroids. Yisrael ----- Original Message ----- =46rom: "Yisrael Asper" <email@example.com> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 4:55 PM Subject: PhyloCode > Thank you for your response. If you codify scientific jargon so tha= t you are > insistent that a particular wording should be the official scientif= ic > definition it will influence the dictionaries automatically. Dictio= naries > are not perfect. They will however be smart enough to notice with t= he > scientific community insistent on a particular authorized wording a= s the > official scientific definition to note that there will sometimes th= ough by > no means always be a discrepancy between common usage and less comm= on usage. > Like asking for milk and getting camel's milk when you asked for mi= lk. Even > though both are milk still the more general and scientific definiti= on is not > one commonly meant among English speakers. So again I say to have i= t 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 you do that the publ= ic can be > won over. Are there some proposals to eliminate species as a catego= ry in > PhyloCode thus generalizing even more living beings? As far as T Re= x I was > noticing for the first time that I cannot combine every word's lett= ers since > Trex would not sound like T Rex unlike the word e mail which can be written > 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 s= maller > than asteroids. In our solar system perhaps not true, more so not t= o be > assumed in others perhaps. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "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 h= ave it be > > > that the official PhyloCode organization insist that the wordin= g in > > > Dictionaries wherever the Thanksgiving Day clause applies shoul= d state > > > that > > > the definition includes all of the descendents. If this is done= the > > > Thanksgiving day clause's objective will be fulfilled. What do = you 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 Engl= ish > > language. We're not trying to change the English or any other lan= guage, > > 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*= won't be > a > > genus anymore. However, the rules for species names -- as opposed= to clade > > names -- are being written right now. Currently some 15 different > proposals > > exist. We'll see...