From @gate.demon.co.uk,@uga.cc.uga.edu:lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Fri Jun 09 22:04:57 1995 Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA3326 ; Fri, 09 Jun 95 22:04:54 BST Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk via puntmail for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk; Thu, 08 Jun 95 04:40:16 GMT Received: from gate.demon.co.uk by punt2.demon.co.uk id aa00587; 8 Jun 95 5:39 +0100 Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by gate.demon.co.uk id aa25268; 7 Jun 95 20:45 GMT-60:00 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 0192; Wed, 07 Jun 95 15:42:59 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 4642; Wed, 7 Jun 1995 13:59:03 -0400 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 13:57:09 -0400 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: birds? X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Iain Alexander Message-ID: <9506072045.aa25268@gate.demon.co.uk> Status: R >I believe in fuzzy categories, and I recognize that this example is from >time to time used to exemplify the notion, but I think it is not in the >least fuzzy. Eagles, pigeons, penguins are all indubitably birds, and >bats, squirrels are indubitably not birds. These are on a TYPICALITY >GRADIENT [emphasis, not yelling] but not a MEMBERSHIP GRADIENT. Why are the former birds, and the latter non-birds? How do you know? You mean you believe a biologist? Then tell me - is an archeopteryx a bird? How about those warm-blooded dinosaurs they are now hypothesizing. To make the case clearer (or fuzzier %^), how about wolf vs. dog? They have separate species names, but have fertile offspring and hence biologically are one species. In any event, biological taxonomy is not the same as linguistic taxonomy. I can easily imagine some observers and cultures considering a bat to be more a bird than a penguin. Also, my memory may be hazy, but doesn't Hopi fail to distinguish between a bird and a pilot of an airplane, or something like that? This was one of those Whorfian examples. The inclusion of "by standard" and "under condition" places in some Lojban predicates might therefore be taken as attempts to take particularly fuzzy categories (and those especially so given timeless sense) and make their subjectivity and conditionality more specific. (See my response to Jorge on some gismu place structures in this light.) lojbab