The has-relation- when we talk about has relation we focus on the idea that things have parts.

Let's think of a triangle.

If a person says: "I saw a shape that has three sides", then that entails that a person saw a triangle. Now,
if someone says: I saw a square", then that entails that he saw a shape with four equal sides.

We have been saying that entailments are a guarantee. However, when we talk about the has-relation
our entailments can only be correct if we talk about nouns, in this case, taking into account
Prototypicality. So, if we are talking about a prototypical face or a prototype for a face and someone
says that he/she drew a face, we can only say that that face has two eyes if we consider that a prototype
face has usually two eyes. This is because we know that in films, movies we have aliens that usually
appear with one eye and sometimes three eyes. They incontestability are faces but those faces are not
prototype faces.

Another example...

A prototype for a house has door, windows, roof.

Of course, not all houses that we see from time to time have the door, windows and roof. So, if
someone says that he drew a house and we say that that entails that he/she drew a window, that may
be incorrect if the house he/she drew is not a prototype for a house. Because not all houses have
windows. So, for that to be right we need to consider the idea of prototypes.

So, in the has-relation we take into account the idea of prototype in order to work out entailments.

Most of the entailments that are yielded in the has-relation are not a guarantee. Pragmatic inferences:
explicature and implicature can be consulted.

Prototypicality

Prototype

Let's think of "face"

If a kind is drawing a face, we expect the kid to draw eyes, mouth...

A prototype for a face or a prototypical face is one that have two eyes, a nose...

aliens have one eye, they are faces but are not prototype of a face. That's why we say entailments are
only a guarantee when we talk about things tanking into account prototypicality.

A prototypical house has door, roof, window...

From time to time we've seen houses without windows. They are still houses regardless of not having
windows. But they are not a prototype for a house.
The faces of those aliens that appear with one eye, they are faces but are not a prototype for a face. So,
that's why we say when we talk about has-relation entailments are only guarantee when we talk about
things tanking into account prototypicality because we can say "I saw a face", if I saw a face then that
entails that I saw two eyes. But probably the face I saw had one eye. Because if it is not a prototypical
face then it may not even have eyes.

So, in the has relation we work out entailments when we have a prototype of something.

If someone is asked to draw a chair, he/she will draw something that has 4 legs. But, there so many
chairs with only one leg. Those are chairs but are not a prototypical chair.

Parts of parts/ parts have parts

A "window" has panes, or a window has parts. So, a house has window but windows have parts as well
because they have panes. So, things have parts and the parts of the things that have parts also have
parts. That's is why we say parts have parts.

Windows is a part of a house, but a window itself has parts.

How can we have pragmatic inferences triggered by the has-relation? Or how can we work out
pragmatic inferences?

Ans: in English, the definitive article"the" is usually used to talk about things that are unique, to talk
about things that we mention for the first time. But in other circumstances we often use "the" when we
are talking about old information. e.g.,

I saw a dress. The dress had one pocket.

For the second time mentioning "dress", we used "the" because it's old information because we all
know the dress that we are talking about.

Definiteness when we talk about the has-relation may be affected a little bit because there are things
that we mention for the first time but because such things are parts, we can mention to the parts using
the definite article. e.g.,

I bought you a house. Uau!! The doors are metallic wooden ones?

Usually we don't say the door when it is the first time mentioning this. But because we know that the
person is talking about a house and we know that a house has parts and the door is one of the parts, we
can use the definite article when mentioning the parts even if we are mentioning for the first time.

So, that is how pragmatic inferences are triggered by the has-relation.

Superordinate- is the term with more general meaning, is the blanket ter, umbrella term.

Hyponym- terms with more specific meaning.

Incompatibility

The relationship that holds between hyponyms that belong to the superordinate term is of
incompatibility, but sometimes we can have compatibility if we write two referents that are
synonymous. e.g.,

When we talk about seats: a sofa is a seat, a stool is a seat, a bench is a seat.

What if we have for a stool, a chair, a couch, a sofa, divan, a settee. What is the relationship /sense
relation that holds between them? Compatibility or incompatibility?

Ans: stool-chair, there is incompatibility because if one thing is a stool it cannot be a chair

Chair-couch, there is incompatibility because if one thing is a chair, then it is not a couch.

Couch-sofa-divan-settee, there is compatibility because one thing that is called a sofa it can also
be a settee, a divan, a couch. They are synonymous with each other.

When we talk about cutlery: spon, fork, knive, spork

The sense relation that holds between all the hyponyms is for incompatibility because if one thing is a
spon, it is not a fork, a knife and a spork.

Entailment

The entailment for superordinate and hyponyms is usually of one way. e.g.,

If we saw:

A. He drew a shape

B. He drew a triangle

"He drew a triangle" entails that "He drew a shape" but he drew a shape does not necessarily entail that
he drew a triangle. Perhaps he drew a square or circle.

So, entailment is not usually from the Superordinate to the hyponym. It is from the hyponym to the
Superordinate.

Spatial parts

A prototype things such as a cellphone, tree, bus can be said to have front, back, sides...

The front since of cellphone will never change regardless of the the positions or where we look it from.
The back side will remain as the back side, the front side will also remain as the front side. However,
there are things such a tree. When we look at a tree, it's front wil depend on our stand front. If we move
to the other side of the tree, the side of tree will become the front and the front wil become the back.
This is because in certain circumstances, this special parts of words are often deitic which means they
are interpreted in relation to the situation of utterance.

So, in certain situations they may be used as deitic expressions, but in other contexts the can be
referring to things that remain the same. The front side will remain as the front side and the back side as
the back side.

Ends and beginnings

Ropes have beginning and end. The beginning and the end of a rope will depend on where we are. We
are standing at point A, point B will be the end of the rope and point A will be the beginning and if we
move to point B, point A will be the end of the rope and B, the beginning. But this does not happen with
months and dates.

Hyponymy

Superordinate term- is a term that possess more general meaning. e.g., flower

Hyponym- is a term that possess more specific meaning. e.g., rose, tulip

There is an interesting sense relation among these hyponyms which is incompatibility.

When we talk about flatware, cutlery, it occurs to us spoons, fork, knive, spork.

If someone says he bought spoons we know that he did not buy forks, knives or even spork.

Not that when we talk about antonyms, entailment is from affirmative to negative. e.g., if we say: "she is
short", that entails the negation of "tall" (she is not tall), but we don't have entailment from negative to
the affirmative. If we say, she is not tall entails that she is short, it may not be true because we have a
middle ground between short and tall. In antonyms we can only move from affirmative to negative while
in binaries we can move from affirmative to negative and we can also move from negative to affirmative.

Similarly, superordinate term and hyponyms offer us an interesting entailments patterns. We can have
entailments from the hyponym to the superordinate term. e.g., if someone says he bought a tulip, that
entails that the person bought a flower. But if he says he bought a flower we cannot say that that person
bought a rose because perhaps a person bought a tulip. So, entailments is from hyponyms to
superordinate term, but we don't have entailment from the superordinate term to the hyponyms.

About incompatibility between hyponyms, there is incompatibility when they are not synonyms, but
once we have synonyms then there is no incompatibility.

Between words we can have the following sense relation:

Synonyms and compatibility

Antonyms and incompatibility

Complementaries or binaries

Conversions

Hierarchies of hyponyms

We can have a word "flower" which is a superordinate term of "rose" for example and rose is a
hyponym of "flower". In this case, we can say that we have different types of roses. So, the hyponym
"rose" in it's turn can be the superordinate for other words.