[Previous by date - Re: languages in PhyloCode]
[Next by date - Re: Fw: languages in PhyloCode]
[Previous by subject - Re: Fw: languages in PhyloCode]
[Next by subject - Re: Fw: languages in PhyloCode]
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 14:08:11 +0100
From: Michel Laurin <laurin@ccr.jussieu.fr>
To: PhyloCode mailing list <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Re: Fw: languages in PhyloCode
--Boundary_(ID_duYhbkn6J7fksibDJvOMdg)
Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Hi fellow phylocoders,
>Why not do something like mandate that diagnoses be written in two
>of the six official languages of the UN: Arabic, Spanish, Chinese,
>Russian, English, and French; regardless of the language the paper's
>actually written in. This would probably guarantee the highest
>possible readership; after all, there's a reason the UN chose those
>languages as official. Latin could be retained as a seventh choice
>for its historical significance.
>
>Pete Buchholz
><mailto:Tetanurae@aol.com>Tetanurae@aol.com
>
>I think this is a very good idea.
I like that idea too, but I think that the code should
require that one of the two languages be English because it a
definition were published in Arabic and Chinese (for example), I
would be absolutely unable to decipher it. After writing this text,
but before sending it, I noticed that Phil and Pete made similar
comments, so there seems to be a consensus on this.
>Using symbols for definitions is one, too; we could easily invent
>some for qualifying clauses, such as the mathematical "without" sign
>\ . What about Pinnipedia =3D {Otaria byronia de Blainville 1820
>+ Odobenus rosmarus L. 1758 + Phoca vitulina L. 1758 \ Ursus arctos
>L. 1758, Canis lupus L. 1758}? (Means, the most recent common
>ancestor of the first three and all its descendants, if the latter
>two do not belong to them.) This would restrict words to
>apomorphy-based qualifying clauses and definitions.
I like that idea too.
Sincerely,
Michel
--
**********************************
Michel Laurin
Equipe 'Formations squelettiques'
CNRS - UMR 8570
Case 7077
Universit=E9 Paris 7 - Denis Diderot
2, place Jussieu
75251 Paris cedex 05
=46rance
Tel. (33) 1 44 27 36 92
=46ax. (33) 1 44 27 56 53
http://phylogeny.arizona.edu/tree/laurin/Laurin_Home_page.html
**********************************
--Boundary_(ID_duYhbkn6J7fksibDJvOMdg)
Content-type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type=3D"text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: Fw: languages in PhyloCode</title></head><body>
<div>Hi fellow phylocoders,</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type=3D"cite" cite>
<blockquote><font face=3D"Arial" size=3D"-1">Why not do something like
mandate that diagnoses be written in two of the six official languages
of the UN: Arabic, Spanish, Chinese, Russian, English, and French;
regardless of the language the paper's actually<i> written</i> in.
This would probably guarantee the highest possible readership;
after all, there's a<i> reason</i> the UN chose those languages as
official. Latin could be retained as a seventh choice for its
historical significance.<br>
<br>
Pete Buchholz</font></blockquote>
<blockquote><a href=3D"mailto:Tetanurae@aol.com"><font face=3D"Arial"
size=3D"-1">Tetanurae@aol.com</font></a></blockquote>
<blockquote><br></blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type=3D"cite" cite><font face=3D"Arial">I think this is a
very good idea.</font></blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div><x-tab> </x-tab>I like
that idea too, but I think that the code should require that one of
the two languages be English because it a definition were published in
Arabic and Chinese (for example), I would be absolutely unable to
decipher it. After writing this text, but before sending it, I
noticed that Phil and Pete made similar comments, so there seems to be
a consensus on this.</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type=3D"cite" cite><font face=3D"Arial">Using symbols for
definitions is one, too; we could easily invent some for qualifying
clauses, such as the mathematical "without" sign \ .
What about Pinnipedia =3D {<i>Otaria byronia</i> de Blainville 1820
+ <i>Odobenus rosmarus</i> L. 1758 + <i>Phoca vitulina</i>
L. 1758 \<i> Ursus arctos</i> L. 1758,<i> Canis lupus</i> L. 1758}?
(Means, the most recent common ancestor of the first three and all its
descendants, if the latter two do not belong to them.) This would
restrict words to apomorphy-based qualifying clauses and
definitions.</font></blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div><x-tab> </x-tab>I like
that idea too.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><x-tab>
</x-tab>Sincerely,</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><x-tab>
</x-tab>Michel</div>
<x-sigsep><pre>--
</pre></x-sigsep>
<div>**********************************<br>
Michel Laurin<br>
Equipe 'Formations squelettiques'<br>
CNRS - UMR 8570<br>
Case 7077<br>
Universit=E9 Paris 7 - Denis Diderot<br>
2, place Jussieu<br>
75251 Paris cedex 05<br>
=46rance<br>
Tel. (33) 1 44 27 36 92<br>
=46ax. (33) 1 44 27 56 53</div>
<div>http://phylogeny.arizona.edu/tree/laurin/Laurin_Home_page.html</div
>
<div>**********************************</div>
</body>
</html>
--Boundary_(ID_duYhbkn6J7fksibDJvOMdg)--