Re: local units, species hierarchy

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

1. I do not think unit-name lujvo need to be "compelling" - they can be
among the most awful lujvo we come up with, because there is little likelihood
for later confusion over meaning.  I like elegant metaphor when I find it,
but don't find it vital  kurfyradno would probably do, since one reason for
the continued use of degrees over radians is that it allows integral
measurement of right angles (and other commonly used angles).  But whatever
we come up with, if we have an explanation, should be fine, since there will
be very few lujvo based on radno.

2. Similarly, the fact that "se jutsi", "te jutsi" etc. is vague without
the other members of the hierarchy doesn't mean that lujvo based on those
are vague.  We just have to get a complete list of bilogical divisions
and devise SOME lujvo for each.  The lujvo for "is in phylum" doesn't need
the places for the other subdivisions under phylum either - a case of
logical place deletion that cannot be predicted by algorithm, it seems to me.

3. I have extreme disinterest in the pronunication of Linnean names.  We have
defined the convention that we are quoting non-Lojban text, and thus the
way to pronounce them is not part of the LOJBAN language.  If we decide to
adopt JCBs or some other scheme later (if anyone cares), that is fine.
The more significant equivalent problem is that of devising a conventional
way of Lojbanizing Linnean names into fu'ivla when this is appropriate.
This is a much trickier problem than pronouncing the names in their raw
non-Lojbanic form, since it requires both a pronunciation assumption AND rules
for modifying that pronunciation to fit the morphology constraints.

4.  Unless there is argument, i will make the x3 x4 switch in local units.

lojbab