| 5. |
A 2012-06-09 01:10:24 Jim Breen <...address hidden...>
|
| |
Comments: |
Better not to be ambiguous. |
| 4. |
A* 2012-06-07 14:50:42 Marcus
|
| |
Comments: |
"order of" is of course more ambiguous than "comprising" but
shouldn't "order of birds" etc. also be made less ambiguous
then by including the article? i.e. turning it into "an
order of birds." using only "of" will be ambiguous in either
case, but since it's not the main, actual definition but
just an explanatory tag meant to guide understanding, it's
my opinion that a bit of ambiguity is permissible. |
| 3. |
A 2012-06-07 14:14:31 Rene Malenfant <...address hidden...>
|
| |
Comments: |
again, for comparison:
"Sphenisciformes is THE order of penguins"
"Sphenisciformes is AN order of birds"
without the article, the intended meaning is ambiguous. |
| 2. |
A 2012-06-07 14:13:18 Rene Malenfant <...address hidden...>
|
| |
Comments: |
Sphenisciformes is 'THE order of penguins' but if you're not including the article here, it's totally ambiguous and is more naturally interpreted as 'AN order of penguins', which is incorrect as it suggests that penguins belong to more than one order.
Please use the unambiguous 'comprising' when appropriate. |
| |
Diff: |
@@ -13,1 +13,1 @@
-<gloss g_type="expl">order of penguins</gloss>
+<gloss g_type="expl">order comprising the penguins</gloss> |
| 1. |
A* 2012-06-07 13:08:56 Marcus
|
| |
Refs: |
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/ペンギ�
%B3%E7%9B%AE |