But that’s only a nominal distinction, and gets into circular arguments like “A is not in B because the definition of B excludes A.” Physically, swimming and flying are basically the same thing. For the smallest insects, the air is viscous enough that their structures and motion for “flying” share more similarities with how aquatic organisms swim than how birds fly.
I think it has more to do with how human languages are necessarily human centric. WE can’t fly through the air (not when those words were being developed) but we can swim through water. So our brains categorise them as different concepts.
We have a word for flying in liquids instead of gasses, but I can’t remember it.
But that’s only a nominal distinction, and gets into circular arguments like “A is not in B because the definition of B excludes A.” Physically, swimming and flying are basically the same thing. For the smallest insects, the air is viscous enough that their structures and motion for “flying” share more similarities with how aquatic organisms swim than how birds fly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairyfly
I think it has more to do with how human languages are necessarily human centric. WE can’t fly through the air (not when those words were being developed) but we can swim through water. So our brains categorise them as different concepts.
I think it’s kindof as simple as different states of matter get different words, walking is for solid, swimming is for liquid, flying is for gas.