birds?

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@access.digex.net>]

>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