Classification of things
IP has asked an interesting question about the metaphysical roots of biological systematization.
An even greater problem is in language, as nouns (standing for things) are typically classified into noun classes. In Indo-European languages, there are, as a rule, three grammatical genders (he, she, it), in Semitic languages it is two, but "things" can be classed differently, very differently. Come to think of it, our way is neither natural nor trivial. Ascribing gender to inanimate objects is not obvious, and there must be certain belief behind it: the personification of the world. So the grammar must be reflecting the ancestral methaphysics. Would a spoken language be invented today, it could be quite different. Just how different? One only needs to look at Australia and Africa, where the noun classes are more numerous and quite different from ours:
...Whenever a Dyirbal (an Australian aboriginal language) speaker uses a noun in a sentence, the noun must be preceded by a variant of one of four words: bayi, balan, balam, bala. These words classify all objects in the Dyirbal universe.
Bayi: men, kangaroos, possums, bats, most snakes, most fishes, some birds, most insects, the moon, storms, rainbows, boomerangs, some spears, etc.
Balan: women, anything connected with water or fire, bandicoots, dogs, platypus, echidna, some snakes, some fishes, most birds, fireflies, scorpions, crickets, the stars, shields, some spears, some trees, etc.
Balam: all edible fruit and the plants that bear them, tubers, ferns, honey, cigarettes, wine, cake.
Bala: parts of the body, meat, bees, wind, yamsticks, some spears, most trees, grass, mud, stones, noises, language, etc.
http://www.virtualschool.edu/mon/SocialConstruction/LakoffWomenFireDanger.html
According to Lakoff, the systematics are: (i) animate objects, men, (ii) women, water, fire, violence, (iii) edible fruit and vegetables, and (iv) not classifiable in the first three.
So men and good things but plants are classed together and women and bad things but plants are classed together; plants are separate, and neutral things but plants are separate. This is not the only oddity:
...One of the unique things about the Dyirbal language is that it has two variations that are used depending on whom the speaker is addressing. The Guwal variation was used in everyday speech, but the Dyalnuy, or “mother-in-law,” variety was used when the speaker was within earshot of certain taboo relatives. These relatives included parents-in-law of the opposite sex, children-in-law of the opposite sex, and (only in certain totems) any father’s sister’s children or mother’s brother’s children. http://www.macalester.edu/linguistics/endangered/Dyirbal/Dyirbal.htm
Nettle and Romaine ("Vanishing voices") observe that the classification is wholly dependent on the knowledge of mythological metaphysics as it is all built on association to this myth. Men are class (i); men fish, so fish are class (i), nets are use to fish, so these are class (i), too, etc. Birds are the spirits of dead women, so these belong to class (ii); the moon and the sun are husband (moon) and wife (sun), so fire is class (ii). Another principle is how much potential evil is potentially present in an object: fish are, generally, class (i), but dangerous fish are class (ii), because femininity is viewed as the personification of violent evil. This is understandable. Surely, things must be classed according to one's worldview. As it can be very odd, the classifications would also be odd.
...The Ngangikurrunggurr language has noun classes reserved for canines, and hunting weapons, and the Anindilyakwa language has a noun class for things that reflect light. Yanyuwa has 16 noun classes, including nouns associated with food, trees and abstractions, in addition to separate classes for men and masculine things, women and feminine things. The Bats language (in Georgia) has eight classes. The Andi language has a noun class reserved for insects.
Some people are more numerically/geometrically than gender/taxonomically minded:
...The Kivunjo language has 16 noun classes including classes for precise locations and for general locales, classes for clusters or pairs of objects and classes for the objects that come in pairs or clusters, and classes for abstract qualities.
...the Bantu languages have a total of 22 noun classes. Most of them have at least 10 noun classes. Shona has 20 classes, Swahili has 15, Sesotho has 18 and Luganda has 17 (the main ten are: people, long objects, animals, miscellaneous objects, large objects and liquids, small objects, languages, pejoratives, infinitives, mass nouns). In Swahili it is 18 classes: animals/plants/fruits/things x plural/singular x locative/directive x inside/out + verbal nouns).
Just think of it: how perverted has to be one's worldview to class everything into males and females or good-Moon and evil-Sun. How much more natural it is to class things by location, size, the degree of abstractness, etc. like Kivunjo language does. It is more natural because it requires no presupposed belief about the nature of things, being objective. But it is the rarest of exceptions. Obviously, such aspirations of neutrality and objectivity are not the basis of language. Neither is true about scientific classifications.
Why?
An even greater problem is in language, as nouns (standing for things) are typically classified into noun classes. In Indo-European languages, there are, as a rule, three grammatical genders (he, she, it), in Semitic languages it is two, but "things" can be classed differently, very differently. Come to think of it, our way is neither natural nor trivial. Ascribing gender to inanimate objects is not obvious, and there must be certain belief behind it: the personification of the world. So the grammar must be reflecting the ancestral methaphysics. Would a spoken language be invented today, it could be quite different. Just how different? One only needs to look at Australia and Africa, where the noun classes are more numerous and quite different from ours:
...Whenever a Dyirbal (an Australian aboriginal language) speaker uses a noun in a sentence, the noun must be preceded by a variant of one of four words: bayi, balan, balam, bala. These words classify all objects in the Dyirbal universe.
Bayi: men, kangaroos, possums, bats, most snakes, most fishes, some birds, most insects, the moon, storms, rainbows, boomerangs, some spears, etc.
Balan: women, anything connected with water or fire, bandicoots, dogs, platypus, echidna, some snakes, some fishes, most birds, fireflies, scorpions, crickets, the stars, shields, some spears, some trees, etc.
Balam: all edible fruit and the plants that bear them, tubers, ferns, honey, cigarettes, wine, cake.
Bala: parts of the body, meat, bees, wind, yamsticks, some spears, most trees, grass, mud, stones, noises, language, etc.
http://www.virtualschool.edu/mon/SocialConstruction/LakoffWomenFireDanger.html
According to Lakoff, the systematics are: (i) animate objects, men, (ii) women, water, fire, violence, (iii) edible fruit and vegetables, and (iv) not classifiable in the first three.
So men and good things but plants are classed together and women and bad things but plants are classed together; plants are separate, and neutral things but plants are separate. This is not the only oddity:
...One of the unique things about the Dyirbal language is that it has two variations that are used depending on whom the speaker is addressing. The Guwal variation was used in everyday speech, but the Dyalnuy, or “mother-in-law,” variety was used when the speaker was within earshot of certain taboo relatives. These relatives included parents-in-law of the opposite sex, children-in-law of the opposite sex, and (only in certain totems) any father’s sister’s children or mother’s brother’s children. http://www.macalester.edu/linguistics/endangered/Dyirbal/Dyirbal.htm
Nettle and Romaine ("Vanishing voices") observe that the classification is wholly dependent on the knowledge of mythological metaphysics as it is all built on association to this myth. Men are class (i); men fish, so fish are class (i), nets are use to fish, so these are class (i), too, etc. Birds are the spirits of dead women, so these belong to class (ii); the moon and the sun are husband (moon) and wife (sun), so fire is class (ii). Another principle is how much potential evil is potentially present in an object: fish are, generally, class (i), but dangerous fish are class (ii), because femininity is viewed as the personification of violent evil. This is understandable. Surely, things must be classed according to one's worldview. As it can be very odd, the classifications would also be odd.
...The Ngangikurrunggurr language has noun classes reserved for canines, and hunting weapons, and the Anindilyakwa language has a noun class for things that reflect light. Yanyuwa has 16 noun classes, including nouns associated with food, trees and abstractions, in addition to separate classes for men and masculine things, women and feminine things. The Bats language (in Georgia) has eight classes. The Andi language has a noun class reserved for insects.
Some people are more numerically/geometrically than gender/taxonomically minded:
...The Kivunjo language has 16 noun classes including classes for precise locations and for general locales, classes for clusters or pairs of objects and classes for the objects that come in pairs or clusters, and classes for abstract qualities.
...the Bantu languages have a total of 22 noun classes. Most of them have at least 10 noun classes. Shona has 20 classes, Swahili has 15, Sesotho has 18 and Luganda has 17 (the main ten are: people, long objects, animals, miscellaneous objects, large objects and liquids, small objects, languages, pejoratives, infinitives, mass nouns). In Swahili it is 18 classes: animals/plants/fruits/things x plural/singular x locative/directive x inside/out + verbal nouns).
Just think of it: how perverted has to be one's worldview to class everything into males and females or good-Moon and evil-Sun. How much more natural it is to class things by location, size, the degree of abstractness, etc. like Kivunjo language does. It is more natural because it requires no presupposed belief about the nature of things, being objective. But it is the rarest of exceptions. Obviously, such aspirations of neutrality and objectivity are not the basis of language. Neither is true about scientific classifications.
Why?