h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: The Language of Species - A716951
Author: Ste - U172039

A perspective on species.

Please be brutal

Ste

Hi,

You said be brutal - right?

Maybe you were getting tired towards the end.

.. researcher's opinion...
.. needed to achieve...
.. put its finger...

Otherwise, very good. I liked the spoken language analogy.


Awu.

How did you guess? Thanks for pointing them out the corrections have been made.



Ste

I think this is one of those entries that leave you wondering who it's for. I mean, if this is written for people who already have some understanding of the subject-matter, to enhance that understanding, that's great. I am not qualified to judge any further, it looks good to me, and I'll leave it to those better qualified to pass any further judgment.

But you do seem to be making efforts to reach out into the world of the 'ignorant but curious and keen to learn something', such as myself. And if this is the intention, there are things you can do to make this entry that crucial bit more accessible.

For example:
>Races within a species are a form of variation that is mirrored in human language in the form of dialects. Take your average Geordie and stick him in deepest, darkest Cornwall and that is a sure-fire recipie for linguistic confusion. Also any Scottish person on any telephone to any English person will cause nightmarish communication difficulties.

You could transform this para, totally transform it, by taking the first sentence and putting it last. So it would start, 'Take your average Geordie...' You could also recast the 'Races within...' sentence by saying something like, 'So you can see how, just as there are different dialects within one nation, you can have different races within one species...' - or something.

Anyway, this is my personal initial reaction.

And by the way, there are a few typos, but I'll just mention 'palaentologists' because I've seen typos like that survive Peer Review, sub-editing and editing absolutely unscathed in the past.

This is a good entry and I wish you good fortune.

I thought this was really good, really interesting and fun to read and as a non specialist really easy to follow. I'm not qualified to comment on it either, mind, but I especially liked the languages analogy.

Something that occured to me as I was reading that section was that I think there is a similar lack of agrreement in the linguistics community over the exact status of some dialects. Or does the huge fight we see lurking beneath this entry simply depend on the method of catagorisation (though probably it would depend on the same thing in linguistic circles too). Or are there wild arguements between followers of the same theory too?

Belshazzar,

Excellent point that you raise here, thanks a lot. I completely understand what you mean about accessibility, and I will aim to make some changes that will focus on such an important factor. I'll start by changing that para in the way that you suggest.

It's good to get a new point of view and then re-read your own writing with that in mind.

Point taken about 'palaentologists' , it is 'palaeontologist' isn't it? That's the UK English version anyway I believe, I only have dictionary.com to go by at the moment...

Typos fixed (I hope).

I'll be thinking of ways to alter the perspective of the entry slightly to make it more accessible.

Thanks again

Ste

Thanks Solnushka!

As a self-proclaimed "non specialist", was any part of the entry hard to follow? Or any part that was confusing or muddled in your opinion? This is aimed at the layman, but I fear it might be presuming too much background knowledge.

I think it might be an argument of classification, and the methods used to classify them. During this argument the aim of the debate gets lost a bit in my opinion and some focus point is sometimes needed. A language analogy would be a good one. As I said in the entry, the definition you use mostly depends on what field you're in. A "stick with what you know" kind of thing.

Could I mention more about the debate itself?

All the best and thanks again,

Ste

Well, I didn't find it hard to follow at all, actually. I must confess, though, that I was assuming that in a definition of species the whole point would be to use this as an aid to classification. Am I wrong then?

I don't think you specifically need to go into more detail about a) other ways of defining it or b) the debate unless you want to as your entry is about this way of looking at the problem, and I found your introdution was sufficiently illuminating to give me an idea of the issues involved, without getting bogged down. But hey, if you want to, I'd be interested in reading it!

But I was wondering if maybe some of the points you make in your conclusion about why this is an important issue to sort out may not be better somewhere earlier, as this is the main reason for writing, reading or worrying about it at all... The first paragraph in particular, perhaps? But this is just a suggestion. Really, I think it's grand the way it is!

Cool Entry. I like it. One question: What's a 'Geordie', and where can I find an average one? Maybe a footnote?



Have you seen the Tree of Life Web Project? It's at:

http://tolweb.org/tree/phylogeny.html

It's a neat website with lots of discussion about how various species (and genera, and families, and orders, etc) are and aren't related to each other, and how they ought and oughtn't be classified.

It also has fun branching tree diagrams that you can click on.

Hi,

A Geordie is a native of Newcastle, England. They have an interesting dialect (almost a language). We forget that there are people who don't know that. I'm sure the author will add a footnote.

Awu.

I see you are from Dallas. I've spent quite a bit a time there.

Solnushka:

"I was assuming that in a definition of species the whole point would be to use this as an aid to classification. Am I wrong then?" No, you're right. I asked those questions because it went through a good few rewrites trying to get the beginning right, but I'm feeling more confident now , thanks.

GTBacchus and Awu:

Geordie, right, good point. Footnote added . Yeah, I've been to that site, I could get lost for hours roaming around that thing.



Ste

Er, any other comments?



Ste

Updated and improved the part regarding dialects in "Parlez vous mon genome".



Ste

My only slightly negative comment is that maybe a little more stress early on on the 'general' idea of a species ((groups of) animals who do (can?) interbreed to produce fertile offspring) might be useful.
If someone isn't coming from that perspective, it might give them a hint as to the rough idea before going into technical specifics.

Agreed, it wasn't clear enough. Something I hope I have remedied.

I have added some subheaders to aid the flow and make it more readable and changed the part on the biological species concept a lot to simplify it and hopefully make it more relevant to the entry itself.

Thanks Potholer

Ste

I like your intro, and the headings (and you know I like the rest ).

This sentence: "Take your average Geordie6 and stick him in deepest, darkest Cornwall7 and try and get them to talk to one another." Needs a referance to the other person. At the moment your geordie is talking to a county.

Thanks Solnushka ,

"At the moment your geordie is talking to a county." You are of course totally correct, thanks for noticing. I've fixed that now

Ste

Hi Ste,

I can't quite put my finger on it, but I'm not sure that the title accurately reflects what the entry is actually about. I can't think what would be better at the moment (got a headache after a full day's working), but something about the analogy, maybe?

A couple of small points in the entry itself. I think you will have to take out 'I hear you cry' as it's first person stuff.

A Geordie is a native of Newcastle, not necessarily a resident. I might go to live there, but I wouldn't be a Geordie.

Two small typos:

dieing > dying
parrallel > parallel

Thanks, Zarquon

I have slightly altered the intro, removing the first person stuff

Resident changed to native

Typos fixed.

The title, hmmm, I know what you mean. I was tempted to post a question to this thread to ask if the title was suitable. I've never been really happy with it. But I just can't think of anything else at the moment. I'll give it some thought and respond here when (if) I have come up with something more suitable.

All the best

Ste

It doesn't help one bit that the word "species" is so damn ugly, but I have a couple:

"Species - The Languages of Life"

"Language Versus Species"

If anyone can think of anything better I would love to hear any suggestions

Ste