Message 2005-05-0043: PhyloCode and Dictionaries

Mon, 18 Apr 2005 10:39:20 -0400

[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.
>
>

  

Feedback to <mike@indexdata.com> is welcome!