Re: Conlang names?

In a message dated 11/11/2007 8:56:25 AM Central Standard Time,
joerg_rhiemeier@WEB.DE writes:


> It is problems like this that weigh down taxonomic vocabulary schemes.
> New advances in science, as well as redefinitions of terms, can
> reduce the whole scheme to rubble.  In one of the 17th century
> taxonomic languages, comets were classified as fire phenomena - we
> now know, of course, that they consist mainly of ice.
>
> With a natlang-like arbitrary vocabulary, you can always say that
> "a kombulurri is, as we now know, not a bifrak but a sembrin";
> but with a taxonomically derived vocabulary, you have to change
> the word - and sometimes you have to change even more words,
> especially if the scheme doesn't admit gaps :(
>
Yes, you are right.  And it can be hard to decide where to put a word, too,
i.e., which classifier it should have.  But despite the problems with it, I
still really like the idea.

stevo   </HTML>