Jeez, there is NO concept that is not dependent on context. There is NO concept
that is not infinitely fuzzy and open-ended in itself, period - which is the
principal reason why language is and has to be grounded (although that needs
demonstration).
1. "My response to your post is that you are playing chess with me, YKY"
2. "Make a treehouse in your soul, YKY"
3. "Chair can be a v. sensuous word in some languages." (Geddit? French?)
YKY:> Categorization depends upon context. This was pretty much decided by
the late 1980s (look up Fuzzy Concepts).
This is an important point so I don't want to miss it. But I can't think of
a very good example of context-dependence of concepts.
Some books have these examples:
1. Chess is a sport that is a game (the book claims that people make this
judgement). But chess is not a sport.
2. Tree houses are in the category of dwellings that are not buildings. But
people also think tree houses are buildings. (Again, this example seems
somewhat awkward to me).
3. All chairs are furniture. A seat in a car is a chair but people would
not call a car seat furniture. So, it seems to be a violation of transitivity.
Can anyone give better examples of context-dependence?
YKY
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=108809214-a0d121
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
