You've read "The Analytical Language of John Wilkins" by Borges but have you read Wilkins? Probably a waste of time: http://tei.it.ox.ac.uk/tcp/Texts-HTML/free/A66/A66045.html …
The first time I saw it, my eyes chanced on "Rapacious beasts of the cat-kind (rather than the dog-kind) whose bodies are less long than their legs and who possess quick sightedness rather than boldness or spottedness".
-
-
Borges rightly says the taxonomy is plagued by ambiguities, redundancies, and deficiencies, but the "dog-like" and "cat-like" division of rapacious beasts is actually standard in Linnaean taxonomy: Carnivora has two suborders of Feliformia and Caniformia.
-
This isn't just a convention: they're monophylytic groups. The lesson is that sometimes we should engage with a person's categories by extension rather than by definition or vice versa, because one form can be reasonable when the other isn't, even though they should be equivalent
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.