Language for taxonomic names, redux

[Yury Tarasievich]

On 24/02/17 20:05, Arthur Reutenauer wrote:

>> What's the problem with having a tag for that taxonomy thing? That's a
>> highly specialised language, Latin-derived.
>
>   As at least Michael, Doug, and I already tried to point out, “that
> taxonomy thing” is most definitely not a language in any meaning of the
> term.  It is a specialised *vocabulary*.  I’m not aware of any language

I do not agree with that radical exclusion of 
the taxonomy entity from languages. Definitely 
not in 'any meaning' of the 'language' term.

It has rules for words yet non-existing, and so 
is assuredly beyond the vocabulary, which is a 
mere collection of existing words.

>   These are not requirements, it was simply points raised during the
> discussion.  Country codes were raised by Michael in reaction to Andy’s
> in my opinion outlandish claim that binomial names were to be pronounced
> the same in all languages, and speech synthesis was brought by Andy
> himself in his initial email this year, and led to some questions (how
> would it work?).

Well, I was reacting to the counter-arguments.

Anyway, let /me/ try to say how it would work, 
then -- having the code, it will work in a way 
specific, pertaining to the semantics of text 
marked so. Having no code, it would not work at all.

W/r to points mentioned by me: historical 
orthographies, -- to which I directly refer, -- 
would hardly ever have rules of pronounciation 
worked out (beyond the educated guesses). And 
primitive languages (short vocabulary, not 
having all parts of speech, etc.) are not barred 
from having codes.

-Yury