Re: Animal {gismu}

[John Cowan <cowan@SNARK.THYRSUS.COM>]

la veion. cusku di'e

>   I suggest new gismu at least when there is no existing gismu
>   for the next higher level in the heirarchy. Under no
>   circumstances should a lone gismu be used at two levels,
>   i.e. #0001 cannot be derived from jukni.

It depends on whether you think of "jukni" as meaning "spider" or as meaning
"arthropod (e.g. spider)".  This case is really parallel to "smani", which
means "primate (e.g. monkey)".

> > Invertebrata:Mollusca #0006
>
>   I'd add this group here because it contains quite many
>   economically important animals from oysters to squids.

Damn it, I knew I originally had six proposals, but somehow the sixth one
dropped out.  Mollusca by all means.

> > Invertebrata:Arthropoda:Insecta:Coleoptera #0002 beetle ladybug
>     #0002 : new gismu (or lujvo derived from cinki:
>                           ? cakcinki , jarcinki )

The trouble with all these lujvo is that all {cinki} have those properties:
they all have a hard shell (ever try to squash a cockroach)?  After thinking
about it further, I suspect that since most non-covered insects are beetles,
we can just say "cinki", going to "cinkrcole'optera" when we need to be
precise.

> > Invertebrata:Arthropoda:Insecta:Orthoptera #0003 grasshopper locust cricket
>
>     #0003 : new gismu ((or lujvo derived from cinki: ??? pipcinki ))
>                       (I can't make a satisfactory lujvo)

I can't either.

> > Vertebrata:Mammalia:Cetacea #0004 whale dolphin orca
>
>     #0004 : new gismu / lujvo:  ? xasymabru , jaurmabru
>             (NB. xasymabru doesn't exactly fit Amazonian
>                  river dolphins but I don't think a single
>                  minor exception matters very much.)

Nor I, but I do think that Pinnipedia (seals, sea lions, walruses) would
interfere pretty badly here.

> > Vertebrata:Mammalia:Chiroptera #0005 bat
>
>     #0005 : lujvo:  ? na'irmabru , voirmabru
>             (bats are hardly important enough to rate a gismu)

I agree, and I think these are pretty good lujvo.

>     It isn't too easy to make satisfactory 2-component lujvo
>     for groups of animals, i.e. lujvo which are both reasonably
>     understandable and avoid most erroneous connotations -
>     but longer ones are unwieldy and we can't have gismu
>     for everything.

Correct.

--
John Cowan      cowan@snark.thyrsus.com         ...!uunet!lock60!snark!cowan
                        e'osai ko sarji la lojban.