Please use a single thread for similar aliases/implications
Posted under General
"Knife" =/= "any bladed implement", at least in my view.
For me: if it's double-edged, it's not a knife. If it's longer than your forearm, it's not a knife. And if it's greatly curved/angled, it's not a knife.
So by /that/ definition, a cleaver is probably a knife but a sword or scythe definitely isn't. But that's my definition. The wiki definition only requires a "short blade" ("short" not defined) and a handle.
Not to derail the thread, but what about the oroshi hocho which is considered a knife, but is longer than most swords?
My point was that it's difficult to define strict semantic boundries. By your definition, both cleaver and billhook pass muster. Still, they are atypical as they don't match the usual form.
Shinjidude said:
My point was that it's difficult to define strict semantic boundries. By your definition, both cleaver and billhook pass muster. Still, they are atypical as they don't fit the typical shape.
It is indeed complicated. And language is an /artificial/ system for describing the world. That's why there's a need for an unambiguous definition that -- despite imperfection -- fits the needs of the situation; an agreement between people about how to treat a certain word. The wiki already has a definition for knife which, while imperfect, comes close enough; all it needs is a definition of "short".
What if I wanted to do a search for a typical knife? Would I have to sift through tons of images with different kinds of blades that happen to semantically fit the definition of a "knife"? Or would the stereotypical have a name of its own that I would have to learn and search instead?
Log said:
A billhook is not a knife totally against that one
If Wikipedia is to be believed, another name for a billhook is "fascine knife".
Still not saying I'm for the implications, but I wouldn't be surprised if people considered things like billhooks uncharacteristic knives.
Hmm, there are all sorts of problems there. If you are saying names don't typically indicate an object's identity, that's sort of the opposite of the truth.
Obviously somebody thought a kiwi was a kind of or similar enough to be a gooseberry, or it wouldn't be called that.
The issue is that objects are independent from their names ("A rose by any other name..."), and names can represent different definitions, sets of properties, and expectations which are often incompatible with one another.
I've understood everyone up to this point, I was just noting the difficulties of defining things.
For all the back and forth, except the OP there has been no support for billhook, and only the most tenuous support for cleaver. So unless someone comes up with a good argument in favor, this is pretty strong consensus against.