'Life" by Richard Fortey
UC
Earth" by Richard Fortey is an excellent book, which should be read by
everyone in this group.
John Harshman
Go away.
Chris H
I totally agree he's a very readable science writer, I also really
enjoyed his next one "Trilobite! Eyewitness to Evolution". Must admit I
didn't really get on with the latest "The Earth"
--
C.
UC
wrote:
So many misconceptions about evolution are held by many, that it seems
to me to be useful to point out literature that would be helpful in
explaining the many complex concepts encountered in evolutionary
biology. This book is an excellent one.
UC
I am unfamiliar with those other two works. I'll check them out.
John Harshman
With more than due respect, there is no reason why anyone should credit
your opinion on this sort of thing. (Mind you, in this particular case
you may be right, but you could get as good a chance of that by throwing
darts at a ouija board.)
loua...@yahoo.com
> UC wrote:
> > "Life: A Natural History of the First Four Billion Years of Life on
> > Earth" by Richard Fortey is an excellent book, which should be read by
> > everyone in this group.
>
> I totally agree he's a very readable science writer
See also clocks, stopped, twice-daily accuracy of.
UC
You're not being fair, JH. I read dozens of science books every year
(not to mention other non-fiction works, mostly history). I just
finished re-reading "Wonderful Life" by Gould, and I note that
Fortey's book is in some ways a response to that one. I am familiar
enough with the genre of science books to make recommendations, and I
don't need your approval to do so.
John Harshman
It's not your familiarity that's at issue here. It's your ability to
comprehend what you read and make sensible judgments about it. Your
history here shows that you have little talent of that sort. You have in
the past recommended all manner of nut literature. Or had you forgotten?
If I recall, you were pushing Feduccia's theories of bird evolution, and
Schwartz's theories of human evolution. They "seemed compelling" to you.
All this shows is that your opinions on science books are useless.
Robert Carnegie
We should hope that if UC /is/ reading real science books, they're
making an impression. But I agree that respect is to be earned, and
the statement "should be read by everyone in this group" is
unnecessarily prescriptive. Some folks here know all that stuff
already, I'm sure.
Augray
wrote in
<uranium-11890229...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> :
>"Life: A Natural History of the First Four Billion Years of Life on
>Earth" by Richard Fortey is an excellent book, which should be read by
>everyone in this group.
He even calls Archaeopteryx a bird.
John Wilkins
Yeah, I thought that when it first came out. Are you trying to
understand the bits about cladism?
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
UC
> UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > "Life: A Natural History of the First Four Billion Years of Life on
> > Earth" by Richard Fortey is an excellent book, which should be read by
> > everyone in this group.
>
> Yeah, I thought that when it first came out. Are you trying to
> understand the bits about cladism?
I'm on page 80 or so. On page 78, he makes a point that I made
earlier, saying that Linnaean names are like proper names; you don't
use an article with them.
UC
No.
> and
> Schwartz's theories of human evolution.
Orangutan evolution...
Augray
wrote in
<uranium-11890841...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> :
>On Sep 5, 6:11 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
>wrote:
[snip]
>> If I recall, you were pushing Feduccia's theories of bird evolution,
>
>No.
Yes:
http://groups.google.ca/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/b631b6416252920b/
[snip]
UC
> On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 13:09:40 -0000, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in
> <uranium-1189084180.364410.253...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> :
>
> >On Sep 5, 6:11 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> >wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> If I recall, you were pushing Feduccia's theories of bird evolution,
>
> >No.
>
>
> [snip]
No.
Perplexed in Peoria
"UC" <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:uranium-11890842...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
I would think it would depend on how you use them. I might find a
picture of *a* Paramecium in a microbiology text. I doubt that I would
find a picture of Paramecium. Or are you saying that what I saw was
a picture of a paramecium (non-Linnaean)?
UC
wrote:
> "UC" <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:uranium-11890842...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
The latter. You cannot point to or refer to 'a' Limus maximus.
Augray
wrote in
<uranium-11890858...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com> :
>> Yes: http://groups.google.ca/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/b631b6416252920b/
>>
>> [snip]
>
>
>No.
Yes. Is the first post in that thread not from you? Does the link in
that post not point to an article about a study co-authored by
Feduccia? Are you denying reality, and your own behavior?
UC
> On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 13:36:52 -0000, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in
> <uranium-1189085812.224674.151...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com> :
>
>
>
> >On Sep 6, 9:32 am, Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 13:09:40 -0000, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote in
> >> <uranium-1189084180.364410.253...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> :
>
> >> >On Sep 5, 6:11 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> >> >wrote:
>
> >> [snip]
>
> >> >> If I recall, you were pushing Feduccia's theories of bird evolution,
>
> >> >No.
>
>
> >> [snip]
>
> >No.
>
> Yes. Is the first post in that thread not from you? Does the link in
> that post not point to an article about a study co-authored by
> Feduccia? Are you denying reality, and your own behavior?
I simply pointed out the article. I thought it was interesting
information.
Augray
wrote in
<uranium-11890869...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com> :
Why? What made you think that there was anything worth reading there?
You named your post "Bombshell on bird origins", which indicates that
you gave some credence to Feduccia and Nowicki's claims. You took them
seriously.
UC
> On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 13:55:57 -0000, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in
> <uranium-1189086957.543297.128...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com> :
I didn't know much about them at that time.
Anyway, why not try talking about Fortey's book?
John Harshman
As usual, your rules don't work, and the more you try to patch them with
additional subrules, the more absurd the structure becomes. Now your new
rule seems to be that you can turn a Linnean name into a vernacular term
simply by de-capitalizing it. How silly can you get?
What does Fortey actually say on page 78? Quote.
UC
wrote:
It's a footnote.
"...the name should be italicized, and the genus name is always
capitalized, the species name not! Because it is a name, Cyanea [in
italics] does not require 'the' before it, any more than does George
Ford or Bill Blenkinsop."
AC
I thought you thought biologists were a pack of semi-literates who wrote and
spoke in an unclear, non-concise fashion which made understanding them all
but impossible.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
AC
Which rather demonstrates the key point, that you are totally unreliable in
the activity of pointing out information. It's rather like a blind man
telling me what color of shirt I have on. I suppose he has some chance of
getting it right, but it's hardly going to be an informed opinion.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
UC
The point being that Fortey is an exception. He is an excellent
writer, and that I can judge. In fact, he's rather too literate at
times in this work.
Padmar Mushkin
wrote:
>On Sep 6, 11:59 am, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
>wrote:
>> As usual, your rules don't work, and the more you try to patch them with
>> additional subrules, the more absurd the structure becomes. Now your new
>> rule seems to be that you can turn a Linnean name into a vernacular term
>> simply by de-capitalizing it. How silly can you get?
>>
>> What does Fortey actually say on page 78? Quote.
>
>
>It's a footnote.
>
>"...the name should be italicized, and the genus name is always
>capitalized, the species name not! Because it is a name, Cyanea [in
>italics] does not require 'the' before it, any more than does George
>Ford or Bill Blenkinsop."
But if you were referencing one of a number of people with the same
name, you *would* say, for example, "the George Ford I know isn't
bald."
UC
> On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 16:11:09 -0000, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com>
Of course. Don't be pedantic.
John Harshman
So you have elided "does not require" into "is not allowed". You are
once again shown to be an idiot, incapable of understanding anything you
read. Fortey is clearly talking about references to the entire species
Xus yus. He's not talking about use of the name to refer to an
individual of the species, as in "I saw an Xus yus today". Is it any
wonder that nobody believes anything you say?
Augray
wrote in
<uranium-11890902...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com> :
Maybe you should have realized that before you posted it. Even so,
your lack of knowledge didn't stop you from calling it a "bombshell".
Why did you call it that if you didn't know much about it?
>Anyway, why not try talking about Fortey's book?
On page 47 he calls Archaeopteryx a bird.
UC
Did you notice that he compared the Linnaean name to a proper name. or
did you hallicinate something else?
>You are
> once again shown to be an idiot, incapable of understanding anything you
> read.
You CLEARLY missed the whoole fucking point, didn't you?
> Fortey is clearly talking about references to the entire species
> Xus yus. He's not talking about use of the name to refer to an
> individual of the species, as in "I saw an Xus yus today". Is it any
> wonder that nobody believes anything you say?
He specifically says you DON'T do that. How much clearer can it be?
UC
> On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 14:50:19 -0000, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in
> <uranium-1189090219.156406.112...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com> :
He's wrong about THAT, as is everyone else who says it. By the same
line of reasoning, Tiktaaalik is not a fish, she's an amphibian.
UC
"Genus species" is treated EXACTLY like a proper name. You dn't use an
article with the Linnaean name, because it is the name of a species
and each name is unique. You don't say "I saw a Leona Helmsley" today,
now do you?
Padmar Mushkin
wrote:
So apply the same priniciple when referencing one member of a species.
UC
> On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 17:25:32 -0000, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Sep 6, 1:19 pm, Padmar Mushkin <x...@y.z> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 16:11:09 -0000, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Sep 6, 11:59 am, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >> As usual, your rules don't work, and the more you try to patch them with
> >> >> additional subrules, the more absurd the structure becomes. Now your new
> >> >> rule seems to be that you can turn a Linnean name into a vernacular term
> >> >> simply by de-capitalizing it. How silly can you get?
>
> >> >> What does Fortey actually say on page 78? Quote.
>
> >> >It's a footnote.
>
> >> >"...the name should be italicized, and the genus name is always
> >> >capitalized, the species name not! Because it is a name, Cyanea [in
> >> >italics] does not require 'the' before it, any more than does George
> >> >Ford or Bill Blenkinsop."
>
> >> But if you were referencing one of a number of people with the same
> >> name, you *would* say, for example, "the George Ford I know isn't
> >> bald."
>
> >Of course. Don't be pedantic.
>
> So apply the same priniciple when referencing one member of a species.
By convention, each species has a unique name, so the anlogous
situation cannot occur. We cannot have TWO LImus maximus, as there is
but ONE species with that name. It is the name of the SPECIES and ONLY
the species; we cannot speak intelligibly of 'a' or 'the' Limus
maximus, though we can say "I saw 20 or 30 leopard slugs on the
tomatoes yesterday"....
John Harshman
Of course we can speak intelligibly of "a" Limus maximus. Everybody will
know that we are referring to an individual of the species. You know it,
and it doesn't prevent you from understanding the various books you have
read in which this sort of thing occurs, Wonderful Life for example. Let
me know if it happens in Life, and whether it was intelligible if so. We
can easily say "I saw 20 or 30 Limus maximus on the tomatoes yesterday",
and everyone will know what we meant. Including you, right?
Augray
wrote in
<uranium-1189101...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com> :
Yet Fortey refers to "...a _Hyalonema_..." on page 90, and "...a
_Peripatus_..." on page 100.
John Harshman
So? Proper names, in the proper circumstances, can be used in various
different ways, as in a casting director's plea "Get me a young Harrison
Ford", or a scientist's simple "I saw a Turdus migratorius today".
>>You are
>>once again shown to be an idiot, incapable of understanding anything you
>>read.
>
> You CLEARLY missed the whoole fucking point, didn't you?
No. It's just that your fucking point was in error. Fortey is describing
the accepted form when using species names to refer to species. That
doesn't preclude other uses, as you seem to think.
>>Fortey is clearly talking about references to the entire species
>>Xus yus. He's not talking about use of the name to refer to an
>>individual of the species, as in "I saw an Xus yus today". Is it any
>>wonder that nobody believes anything you say?
>
> He specifically says you DON'T do that. How much clearer can it be?
Ah, but he doesn't. He says you don't have to. And he's referring to a
specific context other than the one we are currently arguing about. You,
being ignorant of the way scientists use language, are at a slight
disadvantage in interpreting things scientists say. But I put down most
of your misconception to simple stupidity.
I would be mildly surprised if Fortey gets through the whole book
without using some equivalent of the phrase "a [Genus species]" or "a
[Genus]". Gould used it in Wonderful Life. Of course anyone who uses it
that way is wrong, according to you; authorities are only appealed to if
they agree with you, which makes them not really authorities, doesn't it?
John Harshman
Just as I expected. Is it not petard-hoisting time?
John Harshman
Yes you do, in fact. Proper names are frequently used this way. You're a
real Einstein, aren't you?
UC
They are hardly experts on usage. They are (cough) scientists.
Generally speaking, scientists are illiterates. Fortey is a rather
refershing exception, but even if he errs.
UC
Yes, but you see that iis a different kind of usage, which in fact
makes 'Einstein' a common noun, in that 'an Einstein' becomes a
synonym for 'smart man'.
UC
wrote:
No, we cannot.
> Everybody will
> know that we are referring to an individual of the species. You know it,
> and it doesn't prevent you from understanding the various books you have
> read in which this sort of thing occurs, Wonderful Life for example. Let
> me know if it happens in Life, and whether it was intelligible if so. We
> can easily say "I saw 20 or 30 Limus maximus on the tomatoes yesterday",
> and everyone will know what we meant. Including you, right?
It's not proper form. An article is used with common names, but not
usually with proper names. Let me show you:
"Get down from the chair, get out my scissors, find the coupon that
came in the brown envelope in the mail this morning, cut it from the
letter, and buy a ticket to London, or better yet, go down the stairs
to the street, take the bus that runs on Wexford, get off on
Canterbury, and walk to Buckingham Palace and talk to a guard, or
maybe ask one of the servants how to get the fastest train to Suffolk,
and there ask to see the mayor, or rather Mayor Smith (if I remember
his name correctly), to see if he can give you permission to take a
taxi to Cornwall and see the last train to Clarkesville, if you can
get to the station."
You'll note that all the common nouns take an article ('chair',
'scissors', 'mail', envelope', 'mail', 'letter', 'morning', 'ticket',
'stairs', 'street', 'bus', 'guard', 'servants', 'train', 'mayor',
'taxi', 'train', 'station'), whereas the proper names take none
('Wexford', 'Canterbury', 'Buckingham Palace', 'Suffolk',
'Cornwall', ;Clarkesville').
Any questions?
UC
> On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 17:52:19 -0000, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in
> <uranium-1189101139.903259.24...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com> :
Mistakes.
John Harshman
Perhaps your definition of "intelligibly" differs from the standard one?
In my world, an utterance is intelligible if it's understood by the
reader. Do you understand what is meant by "a Limus maximus"? If so,
it's intelligible. If not, you're an idiot.
>>Everybody will
>>know that we are referring to an individual of the species. You know it,
>>and it doesn't prevent you from understanding the various books you have
>>read in which this sort of thing occurs, Wonderful Life for example. Let
>>me know if it happens in Life, and whether it was intelligible if so. We
>>can easily say "I saw 20 or 30 Limus maximus on the tomatoes yesterday",
>>and everyone will know what we meant. Including you, right?
>
> It's not proper form. An article is used with common names, but not
> usually with proper names. Let me show you:
Not usually, perhaps, but often enough. As Augray has pointed out,
Fortey himself violates your rule frequently.
[snip pointless example of something not happening]
John Harshman
Then why did you quote him as an authority? (Mistakenly, I will note,
but still that was your intention.)
A bit of advice that you are unfortunately incapable of following: when
you find yourself in a hole, the first step is to stop digging. Or in
your case, when you have tied yourself in knots, the first step is to
stop tying.
John Harshman
So you're saying that Fortey is an authority on usage except when he
isn't. In fact, he's an authority when he agrees with you (or, actually,
when you are able to misinterpret him as agreeing with you) and when he
disagrees, he's wrong. That leaves us where we were already: UC is the
only true authority on anything.
John Harshman
No problem. You can apply this same reasoning to all the cases you
dislike too. When I refer to "a Phacops rana", that in fact makes
"Phacops rana" a common nouns, in that "Phacops rana" becomes a synonym
for "individual of the species Phacops rana". See how simple it is? I
await your lame explanation of why this case is different.
UC
Do we say I'll see you on "the Monday" No (only if we need to
distinguish it from the next or last Monday)? Do we say "take me to
the President Wilson"? No. We say "take me to President Wilson" or
"take me to the president". There are some exceptions. Rivers take the
article 'the' ("the Nile", "the Mississippi", "the Rhine", but as I
said this is something of an exception. We do NOT say "I have never
seen a film by the Michael Moore", now do we? Now, since it is not
unusual for several people to have the same name, one may sometimes
need to refer to 'the' Michael Moore when one is trying to distinguish
between the Michael Moore who is a film-maker and the Michael Moore
who is a grocer in Wexford Street. But since Linaaean names are all
unique and apply to only one species (by convention) there should be
no need for this kind of 'the'.
UC
It's unintelligible to speak of 'a' thing that is unique. 'A' implies
more-than-oneness, and there is only ONE "Limus maximus", the species.
UC
wrote:
What he does in fact conflicts with what he says, but that does not
make what he says wrong. He said that Linnaean names are like proper
names and do not take an article.
> In fact, he's an authority when he agrees with you (or, actually,
> when you are able to misinterpret him as agreeing with you) and when he
> disagrees, he's wrong. That leaves us where we were already: UC is the
> only true authority on anything.
???? Non sequitur.
John Harshman
[snip more pointless examples of something not happening]
When will you realize that particular examples of cases in which X does
not happen says nothing aobut X not happening. "I saw a piece of yellow
cheese, therefore cheese is not white."
John Harshman
You ignored the question, and yes, you are an idiot.
John Harshman
A person just a little bit brighter than you (which is to say, almost
anyone) would suppose that the fact Fortey so freely violates his own
rule would be an indication that you had misunderstood his rule.
And so you had.
>>In fact, he's an authority when he agrees with you (or, actually,
>>when you are able to misinterpret him as agreeing with you) and when he
>>disagrees, he's wrong. That leaves us where we were already: UC is the
>>only true authority on anything.
>
> ???? Non sequitur.
I merely infer your true opinion from your behavior. If your sole
criterion for an authority is that he agrees with you, and is not an
authority when he disagrees (as is clearly the case), then in fact you
are the true authority. This is why you make simple pronouncements so
frequently, and almost never support them with argument: in your view,
the pronouncement from authority should be enough.
Sadly, you are mistaken about this as well as most other things.
UC
Non-responsive. There are two poles, the north pole and the south
pole. That's why we say THE North Pole and THE South Pole, but we
DON'T say THE Antarctica, do we? WHY? Try to use those few
overstrained brain cells to understand WHY we don't say THE Antarctica
or THE Greenland or THE Australia. It's because they're UNIQUE!!!!!
Each species in the Linnaean system is UNIQUE and has ONE NAME which
applies no other species. So, since the NAME is UNIQUE and the SPECIES
is UNIQUE you CANNOT have more than one Limus maximus, which is the
UNIQUE NAME of a UNIQUE SPECIES. The use of the indefinite article 'a'
implies that you are speaking about one of many.
Garamond Lethe
<snip>
> Non-responsive. There are two poles, the north pole and the south
> pole. That's why we say THE North Pole and THE South Pole, but we
> DON'T say THE Antarctica, do we? WHY? Try to use those few
> overstrained brain cells to understand WHY we don't say THE Antarctica
> or THE Greenland or THE Australia.
gg:"the Australia I love"
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,080
gg:"the Australia we know"
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,550
gg:"the australia you"
Results 1 - 10 of about 5,150
> It's because they're UNIQUE!!!!!
<snip>
I understand that you're not a linguist, but I'm beginning to wonder if
English is your first language.
"Enjoy encounters with the Australia that tourists usually miss."
UC
Of course you understand that this is not the same thing. We don't say
"I'm going to the Australia". What you are citing is a different sort
of thing altogether. "The Australia I love" refers to a part of
Australia, taken to represent the whole. One could go to Naples and
say "This is the Italy I love"....but it's not being used in the same
way. If someone were to ask you where you'd been, you would not say
"The Italy" or "The Naples".
Garamond Lethe
I've been to the Bronx and Staten Island.
I've been to the United States and Great Britain.
What was your point?
John Harshman
I don't know how many times I have to say this, but all caps doesn't
make your claims more convincing. I know there's only one species called
Limus maximus. But in fact we commonly use the term also as shorthand
for "an individual belonging to the species Limus maximus". The fact
that species are unique doesn't enter into it. Please. You're only
embarrassing yourself.
John Harshman
Point?
AC
UC <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 6, 12:18 pm, AC <mightymartia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 21:12:08 -0000,
>>
>>
>>
>> UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > On Sep 5, 5:04 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
>> > wrote:
>> >> UC wrote:
>> >> > "Life: A Natural History of the First Four Billion Years of Life on
>> >> > Earth" by Richard Fortey is an excellent book, which should be read by
>> >> > everyone in this group.
>>
>>
>> > So many misconceptions about evolution are held by many, that it seems
>> > to me to be useful to point out literature that would be helpful in
>> > explaining the many complex concepts encountered in evolutionary
>> > biology. This book is an excellent one.
>>
>> I thought you thought biologists were a pack of semi-literates who wrote and
>> spoke in an unclear, non-concise fashion which made understanding them all
>> but impossible.
>>
>> --
>> Aaron Clausen
>> mightymartia...@gmail.com
>
> The point being that Fortey is an exception. He is an excellent
> writer, and that I can judge. In fact, he's rather too literate at
> times in this work.
Except when he isn't, right? This coincides with your "Dictionaries are THE
authorities on usage, except when they're not."
You're addicted to appeals to authority. The sad part is the only authority
you actually recognize is yourself. The even sadder part of all of this is
that NO ONE ELSE RECOGNIZES YOU AS AN AUTHORITY ANYWHERE IN THE
ENGLISH-SPEAKING WORLD.
Actually, the saddest part is that you think we're all idiots who will
eventually come to believe the lie that you know fuck all about linguistics.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
Augray
<uraniumcommi...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<uranium-1189107...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> :
I've heard it said that way.
>(only if we need to
>distinguish it from the next or last Monday)? Do we say "take me to
>the President Wilson"? No. We say "take me to President Wilson" or
>"take me to the president".
Doesn't that argue against your claim? Why don't you say "take me to
president"?
>There are some exceptions. Rivers take the
>article 'the' ("the Nile", "the Mississippi", "the Rhine",
As do ships.
>but as I
>said this is something of an exception. We do NOT say "I have never
>seen a film by the Michael Moore", now do we? Now, since it is not
>unusual for several people to have the same name, one may sometimes
>need to refer to 'the' Michael Moore when one is trying to distinguish
>between the Michael Moore who is a film-maker and the Michael Moore
>who is a grocer in Wexford Street. But since Linaaean names are all
>unique and apply to only one species (by convention)
But they apply to multiple individuals within the species.
>there should be
>no need for this kind of 'the'.
Yeah, there would be.
Windy
> >the President Wilson"? No. We say "take me to President Wilson" or
> >"take me to the president".
>
> Doesn't that argue against your claim? Why don't you say "take me to
> president"?
My other car is Porsche.
-- w.
Robert Carnegie
John Harshman wrote:
> UC wrote:
>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>UC wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Sep 6, 11:59 am, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> >>>wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>On Sep 6, 9:35 am, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@sbcglobal.net>
> >>>>>wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>>"UC" <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:uranium-11890842...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >>>>>>>On Sep 6, 1:47 am, j.wilki...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>>>>>"Life: A Natural History of the First Four Billion Years of Life on
> >>>>>>>>>Earth" by Richard Fortey is an excellent book, which should be read by
> >>>>>>>>>everyone in this group.
> >>
> >>>>>>>>understand the bits about cladism?
> >>
> >>>>>>>I'm on page 80 or so. On page 78, he makes a point that I made
> >>>>>>>earlier, saying that Linnaean names are like proper names; you don't
> >>>>>>>use an article with them.
> >>
> >>>>>>I would think it would depend on how you use them. I might find a
> >>>>>>picture of *a* Paramecium in a microbiology text. I doubt that I would
> >>>>>>find a picture of Paramecium. Or are you saying that what I saw was
> >>>>>>a picture of a paramecium (non-Linnaean)?
> >>
> >>>>>The latter. You cannot point to or refer to 'a' Limus maximus.
> >>
> >>>>additional subrules, the more absurd the structure becomes. Now your new
> >>>>rule seems to be that you can turn a Linnean name into a vernacular term
> >>>>simply by de-capitalizing it. How silly can you get?
> >>
> >>>>What does Fortey actually say on page 78? Quote.
> >>
> >>>It's a footnote.
> >>
> >>>"...the name should be italicized, and the genus name is always
> >>>capitalized, the species name not! Because it is a name, Cyanea [in
> >>>italics] does not require 'the' before it, any more than does George
> >>>Ford or Bill Blenkinsop."
> >>
> >
> > did you hallicinate something else?
>
> So? Proper names, in the proper circumstances, can be used in various
> different ways, as in a casting director's plea "Get me a young Harrison
> Ford", or a scientist's simple "I saw a Turdus migratorius today".
The personal-name use is odd in that most often it means "not, of
course, the actual person whose name I used". But as for species,
those are sets of individuals, a family name such as Harshman comes to
mind as an analogue - and in the dimension of time or at the edges, a
species name is more an artificial label pasted over a set of distinct
individuals, than a Platonic form. We went over all that with... one
of the loons, I forget which.
Dave Empey
$3Y1....@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net:
> I don't know how many times I have to say this, but all caps doesn't
> make your claims more convincing.
It makes them funnier, though. You got him to use multiple exclamation
points, too; good show!
--
Dave Empey
Remember, if you're doing any major experiments in stellar
dynamics, always mount a scratch star first! --Richard Todd
UC
> <uranium-1189107758.409193.41...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> :
Because 'president' is a common noun and "President Wilson" is
essentially a proper noun.
>
> >There are some exceptions. Rivers take the
> >article 'the' ("the Nile", "the Mississippi", "the Rhine",
>
> As do ships.
But not species.
UC
No. False. Wrong. Incorrect. Improper.
> The fact
> that species are unique doesn't enter into it.
It has EVERYTHING to do with it.
>Please. You're only
> embarrassing yourself.
How so?
UC
> John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net> wrote in news:vB_Di.2122
> $3Y1.1...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net:
>
> > I don't know how many times I have to say this, but all caps doesn't
> > make your claims more convincing.
>
> It makes them funnier, though. You got him to use multiple exclamation
> points, too; good show!
Well, when dealing with the retarded, what am I supposed to do?
chris.li...@gmail.com
> On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 13:09:40 -0000, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in
> <uranium-1189084180.364410.253...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> :
>
> >On Sep 5, 6:11 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> >wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> If I recall, you were pushing Feduccia's theories of bird evolution,
>
> >No.
>
> Yes:http://groups.google.ca/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/b631b641...
>
> [snip]
Ha! I missed that thread.
Can we now safely say that trilobites:crabs::UC:science?
Chris
chris.li...@gmail.com
The Linnaeus I know, who never sailed to the Americas on the SS
Titanic, would probably disagree.
Chris
UC
Augray
wrote in
<uranium-11891712...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com> :
We're not talking about species, but individuals, as in "the dog" when
referring to your pet, or some barking mutt down the street. Fortey's
footnote was in reference to species, not individuals within species,
as can be seen when he writes about "...a _Hyalonema_..." on page 90,
UC
> On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 13:20:33 -0000, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in
> <uranium-1189171233.964916.139...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com> :
But you cannot do so, and he erred in doing so. It goes against what
he said on page 78.
The fact is that "Genus species" is the name of a species....and thus
cannot be applied to individuals of that species. "Gorilla gorilla" is
the name of a SPECIES. You may not therefore refer to 'a' Gorilla
gorilla. It makes no sense.
John Harshman
> On Sep 7, 10:25 am, Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
[snip]
>>We're not talking about species, but individuals, as in "the dog" when
>>referring to your pet, or some barking mutt down the street. Fortey's
>>footnote was in reference to species, not individuals within species,
>>as can be seen when he writes about "...a _Hyalonema_..." on page 90,
>>and "...a _Peripatus_..." on page 100.
>
>
> But you cannot do so, and he erred in doing so. It goes against what
> he said on page 78.
Are you saying that Fortey doesn't understand what he wrote, or that he
forgot about what he wrote after only 12 pages? I'm trying to figure out
what you think might have happened to cause him to make such a
"mistake", and to do it consistently through the book.
> The fact is that "Genus species" is the name of a species....and thus
> cannot be applied to individuals of that species. "Gorilla gorilla" is
> the name of a SPECIES. You may not therefore refer to 'a' Gorilla
> gorilla. It makes no sense.
Have you considered the possibility that Fortey (and pretty much
everyone else) knows what they're doing, and it's you (alone, I might
add) that's making the mistake?
AC
Look in the mirror and ask yourself honestly "Is everyone else in the world
crazy, or am I?"
Cheap insults from a non-linguist who tries to pass himself off as one gives
ad hominen a bad name.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
UC
wrote:
> UC wrote:
> > On Sep 7, 10:25 am, Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >>We're not talking about species, but individuals, as in "the dog" when
> >>referring to your pet, or some barking mutt down the street. Fortey's
> >>footnote was in reference to species, not individuals within species,
> >>as can be seen when he writes about "...a _Hyalonema_..." on page 90,
> >>and "...a _Peripatus_..." on page 100.
>
> > But you cannot do so, and he erred in doing so. It goes against what
> > he said on page 78.
>
> Are you saying that Fortey doesn't understand what he wrote, or that he
> forgot about what he wrote after only 12 pages?
I don't know, but even YOU must admit that he says one thing and does
another.
> I'm trying to figure out
> what you think might have happened to cause him to make such a
> "mistake", and to do it consistently through the book.
He's human. He makes mistakes. He needed an editor.
>
> > The fact is that "Genus species" is the name of a species....and thus
> > cannot be applied to individuals of that species. "Gorilla gorilla" is
> > the name of a SPECIES. You may not therefore refer to 'a' Gorilla
> > gorilla. It makes no sense.
>
> Have you considered the possibility that Fortey (and pretty much
> everyone else) knows what they're doing, and it's you (alone, I might
> add) that's making the mistake?
Your proposition would make sense if he had not EXPLICITLY compared
Linnaean names to proper names on page 78, and pointed out that they
do not take an article. How do you explain that away? I want to see
you try.
UC
> > On Sep 6, 8:08 pm, Dave Empey <dem...@cruzio.com> wrote:
> >> John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net> wrote in news:vB_Di.2122
> >> $3Y1.1...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net:
>
> >> > I don't know how many times I have to say this, but all caps doesn't
> >> > make your claims more convincing.
>
> >> It makes them funnier, though. You got him to use multiple exclamation
> >> points, too; good show!
>
> > Well, when dealing with the retarded, what am I supposed to do?
>
> Look in the mirror and ask yourself honestly "Is everyone else in the world
> crazy, or am I?"
>
> Cheap insults from a non-linguist who tries to pass himself off as one gives
> ad hominen a bad name.
Coming from you, I take that as a compliment.
UC
wrote:
Read it and explain it away...
John Wilkins
I know this is futile, but when referring to the *species* no article is
required because there's only one. When referring to an *individual of
that species*, an article can be used the the bionomial because there
are many individuals of that species, each of which is fully T rex or
whatever. So "a T rex" is perfectly OK.
Most normal speakers of ordinary and technical languages understand
this. You, it seems, do not.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Bill Hudson
He's hung up on obeying a strict set of rules, most of which exist
only in his mind.
UC
Do you understand how to speak English? Languages follow a set of
complex rules.
John Harshman
> On Sep 7, 11:23 am, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
>>UC wrote:
>>
>>>On Sep 7, 10:25 am, Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>
>>>>We're not talking about species, but individuals, as in "the dog" when
>>>>referring to your pet, or some barking mutt down the street. Fortey's
>>>>footnote was in reference to species, not individuals within species,
>>>>as can be seen when he writes about "...a _Hyalonema_..." on page 90,
>>>>and "...a _Peripatus_..." on page 100.
>>
>>>But you cannot do so, and he erred in doing so. It goes against what
>>>he said on page 78.
>>
>>Are you saying that Fortey doesn't understand what he wrote, or that he
>>forgot about what he wrote after only 12 pages?
>
>
> I don't know, but even YOU must admit that he says one thing and does
> another.
And this makes it obvious (if any further clue was needed) that you have
either not been paying attention or are incapable of understanding what
you read, since I have said all along that what he said doesn't mean
what you think it does.
>>I'm trying to figure out
>>what you think might have happened to cause him to make such a
>>"mistake", and to do it consistently through the book.
>
> He's human. He makes mistakes. He needed an editor.
Are you human?
>>>The fact is that "Genus species" is the name of a species....and thus
>>>cannot be applied to individuals of that species. "Gorilla gorilla" is
>>>the name of a SPECIES. You may not therefore refer to 'a' Gorilla
>>>gorilla. It makes no sense.
>>
>>Have you considered the possibility that Fortey (and pretty much
>>everyone else) knows what they're doing, and it's you (alone, I might
>>add) that's making the mistake?
>
> Your proposition would make sense if he had not EXPLICITLY compared
> Linnaean names to proper names on page 78, and pointed out that they
> do not take an article. How do you explain that away? I want to see
> you try.
I have explained it already. He was talking about what you do when
referring to an entire species, but the species name is also used when
referring to individuals of the species, and there it properly takes an
article. I should mention that this is true also of genus names when
referring either to individuals or species of the genus. Thus
"Pseudopodoces humilis is really a Parus".
Walter Bushell
<uranium-11891816...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
UC <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Not rules, guidelines.
John Harshman
Simply put, you are an idiot and incapable of understanding anything you
read. This is no exception, nor apparently are my several explanations
already given.
John Harshman
You and Dan "I wear their scorn as a badge of honor" Quayle have much in
common.
UC
> In article
> <uranium-1189181661.438218.228...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
Whatever, the point is that when you fail to follow them you sound
goofy or like someone from India."Take stairs to street, get in taxi
and tell driver to drive to the Buckingham Palace and ask to see the
Prince Charles."
UC
You are incapable of seeing that Fortey and I agree. His statement
supports mine, not yours. You DON'T refer to 'a' Gorilla gorilla.
"Gorilla gorilla" is the name of the SPECIES. In fact, the species has
numerous subspecies:
" * Genus Gorilla [2]
o Western Gorilla (Gorilla gorilla)
+ Western Lowland Gorilla (Gorilla gorilla gorilla)
+ Cross River Gorilla (Gorilla gorilla diehli)
o Eastern Gorilla (Gorilla beringei)
+ Mountain Gorilla (Gorilla beringei beringei)
+ Eastern Lowland Gorilla (Gorilla beringei graueri)
In NONE of these cases would you say "I saw a Gorilla gorilla diehli"
or "I saw a Gorilla beringei beringei". It makes no sense whatsoever.
What you say is: "I saw a fine example of a Gorilla beringei
beringei."
Bill Hudson
> On Sep 7, 12:10 pm, Bill Hudson <oldgeek61-...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[snip]
> > He's hung up on obeying a strict set of rules, most of which exist
> > only in his mind.
>
> Do you understand how to speak English? Languages follow a set of
> complex rules.
I speak and write English fairly well. But I don't pretend to be an
egocentric, pedantic, buffoonish, dogmatic linguist with delusions of
relevancy spewing puffery while tilting at windmills. That's your
job.
UC
Well, it's a tough job dealing with those who THINK they know, but
don't know.
John Harshman
That may perhaps be what you say. It's not what anyone else says. If
Fortey agrees with you, then why does he constantly write the way I
would, referring to "a Hyalonema", etc.? Your silly (and unsupported by
anything other than your misreading of Fortey) rule would require
absurdly convoluted circumlocutions, of just the sort you demonstrate.
That's why nobody uses your silly rule.
All your quotation of the species and subspecies of gorillas is
irrelevant; these attempts to show off your vast knowledge of biology
only make you look more ridiculous.
And finally, this is all yet another example of your inconsistency. Your
claim has usually been that common usage determines correct usage, and
yet here we have a clear example of common usage -- even your supposed
rule exemplar, Fortey does it -- which you nevertheless claim is wrong.
The only consistent thing about you is your lack of perception.
John Harshman
> On Sep 7, 1:46 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> Why don't we ask him? I think I will contact him about this. I will
> point out that he does not follow what he says should be done.
I'm sure he'll appreciate that. Do let us all know what happens.
Walter Bushell
<uranium-11891836...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
UC <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
By this time Indian English is a recognized variant. ;)
AC
Why, because I refuse to believe that you are what you seem to think you
are?
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
Augray
wrote in
<uranium-11891816...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com> :
>On Sep 7, 12:10 pm, Bill Hudson <oldgeek61-...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[snip]
>> He's hung up on obeying a strict set of rules, most of which exist
>> only in his mind.
>
>
>Do you understand how to speak English? Languages follow a set of
>complex rules.
That doesn't mean that you get to make them up.
Cory Albrecht
> On Sep 7, 11:57 am, j.wilki...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
> No, it's not. I say, and Fortey confirms, that binomial Linnaean names
> are like proper names, which do not allow for that sort of treatment.
> When I say something like "the John Smith" that is elliptical for "the
> man named John Smith who lives in Wexford Street"...You CANNOT use an
Odd how you can grasp that ellipticality but not the one of "No, it was
a Poecile carolinensis, not a Poecile atricapillus", epecially
considering how close the two round-abouts are to each other.
> article with a proper name, nor with a binomial Linnaean name. It is
> the name of a species, not members of a species.
>> Most normal speakers of ordinary and technical languages understand
>> this. You, it seems, do not.
> I understand that it is improper.
The rest of us understand that you're an arrogant twit.
UC
Oh, please, surely you can do better than that....how
unimaginative...!
And even if I were, it does not make me wrong...