As an anonymous user, you can only add new data. If you would like to also modify existing data, please create an account and indicate your languages on your user page.

DefinedMeaning talk:parrot (374495)

From OmegaWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

{{outofsync|nld|Dutch}} I modified in the English definition Birds-> Any bird. The Dutch need a similar modification: you cannot define a singular word by a plural definition. Andres 13:44, 31 October 2006 (CET)

I disagree with the change.. The language and the definition is correct. GerardM 13:52, 31 October 2006 (CET)
Why do you disagree? You cannot say that a parrot is birds ...
Besides, this definition is still ambiguous between a common term and a scientific term. I take it that it means that in this sense, by parrot any bird of this order is meant. I am inclined to think that this definition means a scientific use as the meaning of the common word parrot is vague. In the scientific use there is at least one other meaning of parrot: a parrot or a true parrot is any bird from the Psittacidae family. Andres 13:58, 31 October 2006 (CET)

Another incorrespondence is human speech vs. menselijke stem. Though this probably isn't an important difference. Andres 14:01, 31 October 2006 (CET)

Perhaps the description of the order here is redundant. I think the order should be defined in another DM. Andres 14:07, 31 October 2006 (CET)

By saying "human speech" you indicate the sound and not that it is language. By including the order, you prevent the confusion because other birds like the beo can mimic human speech as well as a parrot. When we are talking about a parrot, we need ONE definition not two. So I disagree strongly with your wish to split the DM in parts that indicate the same thing.
As to defining the order itself, that is something that we should only contemplate when we have some functionality to host taxonomical information. This is NOT the right time (as far as I am concerned to concentrate on this) it is demonstrate in my reluctance to add Latin as a language that we can add Expressions to. GerardM 14:32, 31 October 2006 (CET)
So you mean that this definition means a common concept? Then we need a better way of defining it because the concept is vague. The language users don't know precisely which birds it includes and which birds it doesn't include. Then this vagueness should be appreciated in this definition some way. Mentioning an order connotates a precise definition, so we should carefully describe the relation between the common concepts and the scientific concept.
I mean that we have a common concept of parrot and two taxonomically informed concepts of parrot. This not the same thing.
There is no need to add Latin as a language. We might include just vernacular taxon names.
My original point was that we cannot define a singular expression in plural. You gave me no answer about that.
I have no principal objection to "menselijke stem". Andres 14:46, 31 October 2006 (CET)

Did you mean that parrot and parrots should not be different DM? I mean they should because the first word refers to a bird whereas the other refers to a taxon. Perhaps splitting isn't necessary where the taxon has a name in singular. Andres 15:25, 31 October 2006 (CET)