[Previous by date - Fwd: Re: Recent modifications of the Code?]
[Next by date - Fw: PhyloCode]
[Previous by subject - PhyloCode Taxonomic Classifications]
[Next by subject - PhyloCode in Cladistics]
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 10:39:20 -0400
From: [unknown]
To: phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: PhyloCode and Dictionaries
I withdraw all my Dictionary proposals as I see now PhyloCode can ado= pt any usage and Dictionaries will continue to define according to how peopl= e speak in all of the various senses people give to words. PhyloCode may very= well conquer science but unless it can lasso unto people's tongues it's no= t going to cause the linguistic confusion I feared. I hope everyone enjoys ea= ting their dinosaurs. Yisrael Asper ----- Original Message ----- =46rom: "Yisrael Asper" <yisraelasper@comcast.net> To: <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 6:54 PM Subject: Re: PhyloCode > If PhyloCode becomes adopted then the ISPN would be able to exert s= o much > influence on all dictionary publishers in the world since when it c= omes to > the scientific definitions they would be dependent on the official > pronouncements of the scientific community and either accept or rej= ect them > as being in usage but they could not invent their own. For instance= if a > plant were declared by official pronouncement by the scientific com= munity to > be defined by fiat a person a dictionary may feel it should not inc= lude it > or include it with qualification but they would be hard pressed to = say that > the scientific definition is something else since right or wrong at= the > moment it would be the official scientific definition. Remember if = we were a > thousand years ago to say we could land on the moon we would be lau= ghed at > as simpletons by scientists since the moon was considered attached = to a > sphere. It's true that a thousand years ago there wasn't officially= the > scientific method as established by Isaac Newton but a lot of scien= ce was > done all the way to Galileo who established the scientific method o= f > mechanics for earth but just couldn't extend it to the heavens. > > Yisrael > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Marjanovic" <david.marjanovic@gmx.at> > To: "PML" <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu> > Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 5:26 PM > Subject: Re: PhyloCode > > > > > Thank you for your response. If you codify scientific jargon so= that you > > > are > > > insistent that a particular wording should be the official scie= ntific > > > definition it will influence the dictionaries automatically. > > > > I agree. (Though this will happen very slowly.) > > > > > So again I say to have 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 you do that the = public > can > > > be > > > won over. > > > > Why do you think so? Why would a) the ISPN be able to exert so mu= ch > > influence on all or most dictionary publishers in the world, b) t= he public > > adhere so closely to whatever the dictionaries say, and c) the > dictionaries > > not simply (sooner or later) quote the actual PN definition, whic= h always > > includes all descendants? > > > > > Are there some proposals to eliminate species as a category in > > > PhyloCode > > > > Yes. I guess they won't have much success anytime soon, though. > > > > > thus generalizing even more living beings? > > > > How do you mean? It is no problem to name clades that are the siz= e of > > species or even smaller. > > > > > As far as T Rex I was noticing for the first time that I cannot combine > > > every word's letters since Trex would not sound like T Rex unli= ke the > > > word e mail which can be written as email. > > > > I see. > >