curnu

[Pierre Abbat]

lo curnu cu mo? .i ma smuni zo curnu? .i ko'a danlu ko'e gi'e .artropoda
najenai skoselti'eda'u .ije'i ko'a danlu ko'e gi'e se tarmi lo kroka'e je
tupcau slanysmi? .i xu da me zoi .gy. worm .gy. jonai curnu? .i zoi .gy.
inchworm .gy. e zoi .gy. silkworm .gy. ciftoldi jeseni'ibo .artropoda .i zoi
.gy. slowworm .gy. tupcau tupsince

mu'omi'e .pier.
--
ve ka'a ro klaji la .romas. se jmaji

[vitci'i]

On 12/21/2012 07:14 AM, Pierre Abbat wrote:
> lo curnu cu mo? .i ma smuni zo curnu? .i ko'a danlu ko'e gi'e .artropoda
> najenai skoselti'eda'u .ije'i ko'a danlu ko'e gi'e se tarmi lo kroka'e je
> tupcau slanysmi? .i xu da me zoi .gy. worm .gy. jonai curnu? .i zoi .gy.
> inchworm .gy. e zoi .gy. silkworm .gy. ciftoldi jeseni'ibo .artropoda .i zoi
> .gy. slowworm .gy. tupcau tupsince
>
> mu'omi'e .pier.
>

It's a baramin, not a clade.

[Pierre Abbat]

On Thursday, December 27, 2012 19:36:38 vitci'i wrote:
> It's a baramin, not a clade.

What?! You mean that God created the ur-worm which then diversified into
flatworms, roundworms, earthworms, silkworms, and slowworms? No way.

Pierre
--
La sal en el mar es más que en la sangre.
Le sel dans la mer est plus que dans le sang.

[la gleki]

On Friday, December 28, 2012 8:33:24 AM UTC+4, Pierre Abbat wrote:

On Thursday, December 27, 2012 19:36:38 vitci'i wrote:
> It's a baramin, not a clade.

What?! You mean that God created the ur-worm which then diversified into
flatworms, roundworms, earthworms, silkworms, and slowworms? No way.

It's not God. {curnu} is a term used by primitive savage Lojbanists that lived near the Amazon river thousands of years ago.

[Pierre Abbat]

On Thursday, December 27, 2012 22:06:22 la gleki wrote:
> On Friday, December 28, 2012 8:33:24 AM UTC+4, Pierre Abbat wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 27, 2012 19:36:38 vitci'i wrote:
> > > It's a baramin, not a clade.
> >
> > What?! You mean that God created the ur-worm which then diversified into
> > flatworms, roundworms, earthworms, silkworms, and slowworms? No way.
>
> It's not God. {curnu} is a term used by primitive savage Lojbanists that
> lived near the Amazon river thousands of years ago.

Ah, you mean a folk-taxon. I've known all along that "curnu" does not denote a
clade or Linnean taxon, unlike e.g. "guzme" (member of Cucurbitaceae) or
"xruba" (member of Polygonaceae). The question is, what does it denote? What
is included in loi curnu?

Pierre

[la gleki]

Any worm-like creatures, I believe. 

I remember that children can sometimes name worms "snakes". The issue is somewhat related.

And this is not the problem of Lojban.

Can we call snakes reptiles? They used to be called reptiles.

Some new school textbooks have already started to deny that, however.

[Escape Landsome]

Not only children, but Chinese people too.   Snake is categorized under the insect category (the "insect" key)

2012/12/28 la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/HqSmvUUVy1kJ.

To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

[la gleki]

su'o lo since cu curnu vau ua

[Pierre Abbat]

On Friday, December 28, 2012 05:08:41 la gleki wrote:
> Any worm-like creatures, I believe.
> I remember that children can sometimes name worms "snakes". The issue is
> somewhat related.
> And this is not the problem of Lojban.
> Can we call snakes reptiles? They used to be called reptiles.
> Some new school textbooks have already started to deny that, however.

The problem with "reptile" is that the traditional circumscription is
paraphyletic. If you call snakes and crocodiles, but not birds, reptiles, you
run afoul of the dinosaurs. Birds are a branch of coelurosaurs, which are
dinosaurs, and dinosaurs and crocodiles are both archosaurs, whereas snakes
are not. But as long as "respa" has a consistent definition, there is no
Lojbanic problem, even if it is paraphyletic.

The problem with "curnu" is that it has an ambiguous definition or two
competing definitions. It's okay to have a fuzzy definition (there's no clear
boundary between "blanu" and "crino"), but it's not OK for a brivla to have
two different meanings, "worm" and "invertebrate". Lobsters are invertebrates
but not worms; slowworms are worms but not invertebrates.

Pierre
--
gau do li'i co'e kei do

[Ian Johnson]

As my maxim goes: Good Lojban is not ambiguous, but is often vague.

(Or in other words, I agree completely.)

mu'o mi'e la latro'a

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.

[la gleki]

On Friday, December 28, 2012 7:56:49 PM UTC+4, Pierre Abbat wrote:

On Friday, December 28, 2012 05:08:41 la gleki wrote:
> Any worm-like creatures, I believe.
> I remember that children can sometimes name worms "snakes". The issue is
> somewhat related.
> And this is not the problem of Lojban.
> Can we call snakes reptiles? They used to be called reptiles.
> Some new school textbooks have already started to deny that, however.

The problem with "reptile" is that the traditional circumscription is
paraphyletic. If you call snakes and crocodiles, but not birds, reptiles, you
run afoul of the dinosaurs. Birds are a branch of coelurosaurs, which are
dinosaurs, and dinosaurs and crocodiles are both archosaurs, whereas snakes
are not. But as long as "respa" has a consistent definition, there is no
Lojbanic problem, even if it is paraphyletic.

The problem with "curnu" is that it has an ambiguous definition or two
competing definitions. It's okay to have a fuzzy definition (there's no clear
boundary between "blanu" and "crino"), but it's not OK for a brivla to have
two different meanings, "worm" and "invertebrate".

I see.

{vertebrata} is a modern term. It should be a zi'evla.

Worm must be refered to worm-like creatures only.

So I suggest changing the definition. No invertebrates there, please.

[vitci'i]

On 12/27/2012 10:33 PM, Pierre Abbat wrote:
> On Thursday, December 27, 2012 19:36:38 vitci'i wrote:
>> It's a baramin, not a clade.
>
> What?! You mean that God created the ur-worm which then diversified into
> flatworms, roundworms, earthworms, silkworms, and slowworms? No way.
>
> Pierre

The Wikipedia article on baramins includes this quote:

"The cognita are not based on explicit or implicit comparisons of
characters or biometric distance measures but on the gestalt of the
plants and the classification response it elicits in humans."

This is what I meant by baramin. It's a classification based on human
intuition rather than scientific fact.