I think words like “goat” should have a generic and unstudied applicability: if it looks like a goat, and acts like a goat, it’s a goat.
A mountain goat looks like a goat and acts like a goat, therefore it is a goat.
A sheep neither looks like a goat, nor acts like a goat, therefore it is not a goat.
All semantics, of course. If you want to understand goat to mean “member of genus Capra”, you certainly can. If you want me to make goat mean that, you’re out of luck.
I’m willing to grant you the distinctions between goats and true goats, in deference to the science of biology. I am not a monster.
I’m willing to grant you the distinctions between goats and true goats, in deference to the science of biology.
Well that’s my point: this post is about how common names contrast with actual, rigid taxonomical definitions. :p
Like the colloquial word “goat” fits, but your comment read to me, given the context of the post, like you were saying goats can exist outside Capra via a technical definition, which isn’t true.
Yes, we don’t disagree on the biology… I’m just emphasizing the nature of colloquial language as a crowdsourced effort and distinguishing it from the technical rigors of taxonomy.
A mountain goat is a goat, it’s just not in genus Capra.
Fun trip and interesting trip through taxonomy, though, in addition to the gags. A collection of wikipedia articles would be a nice companion.
That’s definitionally what goats are. It’s close, being in the same subfamily, but then so are sheep.
I think words like “goat” should have a generic and unstudied applicability: if it looks like a goat, and acts like a goat, it’s a goat.
A mountain goat looks like a goat and acts like a goat, therefore it is a goat.
A sheep neither looks like a goat, nor acts like a goat, therefore it is not a goat.
All semantics, of course. If you want to understand goat to mean “member of genus Capra”, you certainly can. If you want me to make goat mean that, you’re out of luck.
I’m willing to grant you the distinctions between goats and true goats, in deference to the science of biology. I am not a monster.
Well you talk about ‘goat like behaviour’, how many different types of goat cling to the side of mountains like some kind of Rock Lobster?
My experience of goats is mainly in fields like, oh I dunno, a sheep?
Goats cosplay being in mountains no matter where they are. Goat yards are litered with large object topped by goats. Goat yoga is a thing.
This is very jackdaw.
It’s clobberin’ time.
Well that’s my point: this post is about how common names contrast with actual, rigid taxonomical definitions. :p
Like the colloquial word “goat” fits, but your comment read to me, given the context of the post, like you were saying goats can exist outside Capra via a technical definition, which isn’t true.
now do it with fish!
Phylogenetically, “fish” are simply all non-tetrapod vertebrates.
Yes, we don’t disagree on the biology… I’m just emphasizing the nature of colloquial language as a crowdsourced effort and distinguishing it from the technical rigors of taxonomy.
Wait until you find out what a fish is.
Found the python programmer.
Actually, they’re a COBRA programmer.
They write JavaScript and COBOL for the GI Joe villains and public health care insurance providers
Do you mean CORBA?
Nope, I mean COBRA
Yeah I thought for a programming joke we might have gone with CORBA
But that’s also pretty old.
Every time CORBA in mentioned, a programming fairy loses its wings… Damnit i just said it
Nice ouroboros definition
Ahh so thats what Capra Demon is
The goat head on the dude didn’t give it away?