From: Michael Everson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Mar 11 2009 - 09:44:07 CST
On 11 Mar 2009, at 15:35, Peter Constable wrote:
>> That doesn't mean a RABBIT isn't a RABBIT. What possible benefit
>> there be to distinguish RABBIT from ZODIAC RABBIT?
> What possible benefit could there be to specifying _this_ RABBIT as
> being a ZODIAC RABBIT (an intrinsically narrower intension)?
Do you really believe this? Do you believe that SHAMROCK would be
different from LEXICOGRAPHICAL SHAMROCK?
>> It's a RABBIT, Ken.
> Erm... I think you are in agreement on that point, which is where
> this thread started: the name in the proposal is RABBIT, not ZODIAC
I did not and do not propose to name it ZODIAC RABBIT. I do propose
>> Then what is wrong with
>> * used in Chinese astrology
> No problem with the name. The problem with the annotation is that it
> suggests a primary intended usage that is somewhat narrow.
Nothing of the kind! Where did you get "primary intended usage" from
an annotation. That is one of many possible usages.
> A far less biased annotation would be "used as Japanese emoji",
> which leaves people free to infer use to denote a zodiacal sign or
> whatever other possible semantics might be used in that context.
Good gods, Peter. Why are you making this worse? "Far less biased"? I
don't object to the RABBIT being used in Japanese emoji. Nor do I
object to an annotation stating such. What "bias" is there in
recognizing that the 12 zodiac animals are in this set? (Actually more
than 12 are there.)
What I am coming up against is, apparently, a very narrow view about
the nature of symbols which does not bode well for progress here.
>> Why not annotate the FIRE ENGINE as
>> * fire station
> What's the benefit to restricting it in that way?
Restriction? To me that just means "can also be used to indicate fire
station as well as (obviously) fire engine".
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 11 2009 - 09:46:40 CST