<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><SPAN class=570124906-15082004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Patrick, the contrast between your 'natural' and 'unnatural' terms is
something I've thought about. The distinction has been drawn by others and
discussed in the literature. It relates to the discussion on bats and the emic
classification system of a language. Essentially any category can be viewed
from various theoretical viewpoints. For instance those who believe in semantic
components (I am one of them) will point to the component 'flying' in the
definition of the categories 'bird' 'bat' and 'butterfly'. We can also point to
the components 'feathered' 'egg-laying' 'has a beak' 'has fur' 'suckles young'
'has two legs' 'has six legs' and so on. Each category in each language may
incorporate some of these components. Some languages have a category 'flying
animals' that include flying birds, bats, butterflies, and grasshoppers. The
critical component is whether or not it flies. We would be wrong to call this
the 'bird' category or equate it with the English category 'bird'. It clearly is
something different.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=570124906-15082004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=570124906-15082004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Those
who believe in prototype theory (and I am one of them) will point to the fact
that most English speakers will agree that a penguin or an ostrich is a bird,
but not a prototypical bird. The component 'flying' is important, but not
critical. But we are messed up by the scientific 'unnatural' classification.
Kids have to be taught that penguins are birds. They don't look or act enough
like birds to be obviously birds. In fact if we don't know the species, we don't
refer to them as birds: "I saw an interesting *bird at the zoo yesterday." So
the 'natural' term for a penguin is 'penguin'.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=570124906-15082004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=570124906-15082004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>But to
get back to bats. The reason why there are stories about the bat not
knowing where he belongs is because we don't know where he belongs either. He
flies like a bird and has fur like an animal. If a prototypical bird is like a
robin and a prototypical animal is like a dog, then a bat is really different
than either prototype. We have a hard time classifying him by semantic
components and an equally hard time classifying him by similarity to the
prototype. If our super generic 'natural' categories are 'animal' 'bird' 'fish'
and 'insect', then we will be hard pressed to find a place for lots of things.
In English we fall back on the 'unnatural' categories when forced to classify
the weird things. In 'natural' speech we might just exclaim, "What a weird
animal."</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=570124906-15082004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=570124906-15082004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>There
are other weird things about plant and animal categories, such as the fact that
many terms, like 'animal', occur on different levels of the heirarchy. 'Animal'
contrasts with 'plant', but it also contrasts with 'bird' on a lower
tier.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=570124906-15082004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=570124906-15082004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>One of
the questions I would like to answer is what is universal about animal
classification systems in the world's languages. Do all languages distinguish
'bird-like/flying animals' from 'non-flying big animals that walk on four legs'?
If there is always a 'bird/flying animal' category, what is the range of
variation? Is there a fairly typical category, or are there two: (1) bird, or
(2) flying animal? Will a language have one or the other?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=570124906-15082004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=570124906-15082004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Ron
Moe</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Patrick Hanks
[mailto:hanks@bbaw.de]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, August 14, 2004 7:23
AM<BR><B>To:</B> lexicographylist@yahoogroups.com<BR><B>Cc:</B> Christiane
Fellbaum<BR><B>Subject:</B> [Lexicog] What is a bat? - natural and unnatural
terms<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Here's a Saturday afternoon lexicographical
digression. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>Fritz's thought-provoking question and the equally thought-provoking
replies from Thapelo and others prompts me to mention some work
I'm just starting on natural-kind terms in English and other
European languages. I'd welcome comments and feedback. </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>Terms denoting classes of flora and fauna can, I think,
usefully be divided into "natural" and "unnatural" terms, though of
course, as always, the boundaries are not clear-cut. Natural terms are
central to the language, have fuzzy definition boundaries, and are often
exploited to make new meanings, metaphors, and other creative lexical
uses. Unnatural terms have stipulative definitions with sharp
boundaries. They are usually of quite recent origin (sometimes as a
specialization of a pre-existing natural term).</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>Some
examples:</FONT> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><EM><STRONG>Mammal</STRONG></EM> is an example of an unnatural
term. It was coined in 1826 as a derivative of the 18th-century New
Latin term <EM>Mammalia</EM> 'having mammae' (milk-secreting breasts) --
a direct result of natural scientists' dissatisfaction with the
fuzzy boundaries of natural terms such as <STRONG><EM>animal</EM></STRONG> and
<EM><STRONG>beast</STRONG></EM>. As zoology advanced, scientists
seized on the common feature of breast-feeding to create a term for all
only those animals that breast-feed their young. The term has done wonderful
service in the sciences since then, receiving only an occasional jolt from
discoveries such as the <EM><STRONG>platypus</STRONG></EM>, an egg-laying
mammal -- a remarkable boundary case. But let no one think
that <EM><STRONG>mammal</STRONG></EM> is a natural word of
English. It isn't. It is a term of art. "I was walking through the woods
the other day when I saw a mammal" would not be a natural sentence of
English. "Mammal" is not normally exploited in metaphors and
similes. </DIV>
<DIV>I am delighted to hear that Setswana does not have a term for
'mammal'. Setswana would seem to be a more natural language than
English. </DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>Modern English<EM><STRONG> animal,</STRONG></EM> on the other
hand, is an example of a natural term. Its central membership
is clear, but its boundaries in ordinary usage are much vaguer. </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV> -- Is a <EM><STRONG>lizard</STRONG></EM> an
animal? My intuition (!) is that many English speakers would say
yes.</DIV>
<DIV> -- Is a <EM><STRONG>bird</STRONG></EM> an animal? My
intuition is that many English speakers would say no, </DIV>
<DIV> probably after
some hesitation. (Birds are, of course, members of the </DIV>
<DIV> animal kingdom,
but that's different: <EM><STRONG>Animal kingdom</STRONG></EM> is itself an
unnatural </DIV>
<DIV>
term.)</DIV>
<DIV> -- Is a <EM><STRONG>fish</STRONG></EM> an
animal? Not in ordinary everyday English. </DIV>
<DIV> -- Is a <STRONG><EM>spider</EM></STRONG> an
animal?</DIV>
<DIV> -- What about<EM><STRONG> insects</STRONG></EM>? (and
are <STRONG><EM>butterflies</EM></STRONG> insects?)</DIV>
<DIV> Etc.</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>Paradoxically enough, in the 14th-16th
centuries <EM><STRONG>animal</STRONG></EM> was brought into English
as a learned term, a Latinate, unnatural alternative to the then current term,
<STRONG><EM>beast</EM></STRONG>. A 16th-century
classification, in Gilles Du Wes's 1532 "Introductorie for to lerne
to rede, to pronounce and to speke French trewly", classifies the animal
kingdom into "beestes, byrdes, fyshes, reptyll". Insects were,
apparently, beneath notice.</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>Modern English words like <EM><STRONG>horse, dog, fox, cat, mouse, rat,
snake</STRONG></EM> are natural terms. They may or may not pick out sets
of creatures coextensive with equivalent scientific unnatural terms
(<EM><STRONG>equine, canine, feline, rodent</STRONG></EM>), but they are also
widely used in similes, metaphors, and other exploitations. This alone
is a good reason for categorizing them as natural terms. </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>There is a fascinating interplay between natural and unnatural terms,
also between natural and unnatural meanings of the same terms. One
example:</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><EM><STRONG>Reptile</STRONG></EM> (in modern English) has
become an 'unnatural' term in its central uses. Originally a
natural term denoting anything that creeps (including earthworms, for
example), also an adjective meaning creepy-crawly, it was specialized in
the 19th century by zoologists to denote all and only members of the
zoological class <EM>Reptilia</EM>, even those that don't creep or crawl (e.g.
flying lizards). But meanwhile, it also developed a conventional figurative
meaning -- "a person of a low, mean, grovelling, or repulsive character"
(OED) -- very natural!</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>Natural and unnatural terms generally coexist peacefully, and sometimes
interact semantically, in most if not all European languages, but they
fulfil different functions. Unnatural terms are necessary for scientific
precision, and since English is the international language of science,
it necessarily has a large vocabulary of unnatural terms. Natural
terms are necessary for saying new things and for creative and
imaginative speaking and writing and to anbale people to use language at a
normal speed in everyday discourse without agonizing unduly over precision.
</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>* * *</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>I use the term "unnatural" not only because it contrasts neatly with
"natural", but also because its rather negative connotations are a salutary
reminder of how the supremacy of scientism and logicism have
distorted our understanding of the variability and vagueness that are
essential features of natural languages. I have nothing against
scientific research -- of course not! -- but I question the assumption, often
made in Europe and America, that the artificial terminology that is
necessary for precision in the natural sciences represents an
"improved" form of natural language. To think this is to
underestimate the creativity of lexical semantics: existing words, especially
natural terms, are constantly used in new ways.</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Patrick Hanks</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>-----
Original Message ----- </FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><FONT
face="Times New Roman"><FONT size=3><B>From:</B> </FONT></FONT><A
title=thaps@yahoo.com href="mailto:thaps@yahoo.com"><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3>Thapelo Otlogetswe</FONT></A><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT face="Times New Roman"><FONT
size=3><B>To:</B> </FONT></FONT><A title=lexicographylist@yahoogroups.com
href="mailto:lexicographylist@yahoogroups.com"><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3>lexicographylist@yahoogroups.com</FONT></A><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT face="Times New Roman"><FONT
size=3><B>Sent:</B> Friday, August 13, 2004 10:15 AM</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT face="Times New Roman"><FONT
size=3><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Lexicog] What is a bat?</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Never thought seriously about a bat name in Setswana until now - we
call it mmamathwane [a feminine name, because of the mma- prefix meaning
'mother of' or just 'mother']. Why the feminine name I cannot say. It would
appear 'mathwane' is onomatopoeic to the sound the bats produce and it
is possibly derived from the verb 'go thwanya' - describing a cracking kind
of sound. I imagine many people in Botswana would see a bat as a bird mainly
because it flies - it would be a bird that suckles its young [for those who
know it does!]. We do not have a word for 'mammals' in the language
& therefore such a classification may only be an academic one not
salient to the mother tongue speakers. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><BR><B><I>Fritz Goerling <Fritz_Goerling@sil.org></I></B>
wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">In
Noah J. Jabobs' amusing "Naming Day in Eden" (The MacMillan
Company<BR>Collier-MacMillan Ltd., London 1958), p. 16, I found the
following<BR>interesting quote on how the bat is named in different
languages:<BR><BR>"...how did Adam name the bat? Which characteristic
impressed him at<BR>the moment of naming? Did its blindness move him to
call it<BR>'murciélago'(Spanish), its baldness 'chauve-souris'(French),
its<BR>shyness 'pipistrello'(Italian), its leathery skin
'Läderlapp'(Swedish)<BR>or 'böregér'(Hungarian from 'bör,' leather;
'egér,' mouse), its<BR>preference for the night 'nukteris'(Greek), its
resemblance to the<BR>mouse 'Fledermaus'(German) or 'letutsaya
mysh'(Russian), the sound of<BR>its flapping wings 'watwat'(Arabic), its
winglike hands 'chiroptera'<BR>(Greek 'chir,' hand, plus 'pteron,' wing),
its resemblance to a lily(!)<BR>'liliac'(Rumanian), its reputed love of
bacon 'bat' (Old English<BR>'backe,' bacon)? The Chinese have conferred a
number of laudatory<BR>names on this mouse-like mammal, such as 'embracing
wings, heavenly<BR>rat, fairy rat, night swallow,' and use it as a symbol
of happiness<BR>and long life because its name 'fu' in Chinese happens to
be a<BR>homonym which means both 'bat'and 'prosperity.'"<BR><BR>I have
found African stories about the bat being sad because it does<BR>not know
where it belongs.<BR>How do you name the bat in your language? And where
would you put it<BR>in a domain dictionary?<BR><BR>Fritz
Goerling<BR>---<BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#00007f><STRONG>Thapelo Otlogetswe
<BR></STRONG></FONT><FONT color=#00007f>Information Technology Research
Institute</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#00007f>University of Brighton </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#00007f>Lewes Road, Brighton <BR>BN2 4GJ,
<STRONG>England</STRONG> <BR></FONT><FONT color=#444f75>Tel: (+44) 1273
642912 (office) <BR><FONT
color=#00007f> </FONT>(+44) 1273 642908
(fax) <BR></FONT><FONT
color=#ff0000>http://www.itri.brighton.ac.uk/~Thapelo.Otlogetswe/</FONT></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<P>
<HR SIZE=1>
Do you Yahoo!?<BR><A
href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/aac/*http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail/static/ease.html">Yahoo!
Mail Address AutoComplete</A> - You start. We finish. <BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<br>
<!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
<table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
<tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>
<td align=center><font size="-1" color=#003399><b>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor</b></font></td>
</tr>
<tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF>
<td align=center width=470><table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0> <tr> <td align=center><font face=arial size=-2>ADVERTISEMENT</font><br><a href="http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129qagaf0/M=298184.5285298.6392945.3001176/D=groups/S=1709195911:HM/EXP=1092641527/A=2164331/R=0/SIG=11eaelai9/*http://www.netflix.com/Default?mqso=60183351" alt=""><img src="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/ne/netflix/yhoo0504_testb_300250a052604.gif" alt="click here" width="300" height="250" border="0"></a></td></tr></table> </td>
</tr>
<tr><td><img alt="" width=1 height=1 src="http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=298184.5285298.6392945.3001176/D=groups/S=:HM/A=2164331/rand=257998960"></td></tr>
</table>
<!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->
<!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
<br>
<tt><hr width="500">
<b>Yahoo! Groups Links</b><br>
<ul>
<li>To visit your group on the web, go to:<br><a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lexicographylist/">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lexicographylist/</a><br>
<li>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:<br><a href="mailto:lexicographylist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe">lexicographylist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com</a><br>
<li>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms of Service</a>.
</ul>
</tt>
</br>
<!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->
</BODY></HTML>