John Cowan wrote: >John Quijada scripsit: >> As for the "male/female" example you spoke of, such an example would not >> apply here, since Ithkuil lexicalizes such sets based on semantic >> COMPLEMENTARITY, not opposition, i.e., binary sets with excluded middle >> such as male/female, interior/exterior, space/time, etc. are not seen as >> any sort of scalar "opposites" in Ithkuil, but rather as complements of a >> holistic meta-concept. > >But this choice is not fully principled, for in nature manifest >maleness/femaleness (as opposed to the genetic kind which is concealed) >is in fact a continuum. ______________________ Prototype theory and fuzzy set theory to the rescue! That is why Ithkuil is arrayed with several different morphological means as well as affixes to designate entities that diverge from a prototype, not just in terms of physical/componential structure but in subjective/functional or socially- defined usage or context as well. In this way, hermaphrodites, transgendered persons, transvestites, and even purely hypothetical male- female "mixes" can be morpho-lexically accommodated in Ithkuil, the resulting entity being designated either informally as a "mixture" or componential "melange" OR optionally as a formally defined gestalt. --John Q.