As part of a research project, I am trying to better understand Wittgenstein's family resemblance definitions. I have come across various interpretations of this idea and I want to check my understanding.
Let us suppose that a word TERM could be defined in terms of five different features j, k, l, m and n, but in a family resemblance way. So, as distinct from a necessary and sufficient definition where all of j, k, l, m and n are required features of any specimen of TERM, these features define TERM according to a family resemblance relationship. I have seen a few different interpretations of this idea:
A. A specimen of TERM may have any one of j, k, l, or m, or any combination thereof, but it must have at least one of these four features.
B. A specimen of TERM must have any two of j, k, l, or m, or any combination thereof, but it must have at least two of these four features.
C. A specimen of TERM must have any one of (j and k) or (j and l) or (j and m), or any combination thereof, but it must have at least one of these pairs.
D. A specimen of TERM must have feature j. It might also have any of features k, l, or m, or any combination thereof, but not necessarily; only j is required.
Here is my understanding: I think that B definitely qualifies as a valid family resemblance definition in the sense that Wittgenstein originally meant it. However, I am not sure about A, because if some specimen of TERM have only one feature from the list, then it is possible that they might bear little resemblance to other specimens. For example, there might be four specimens J, K, L and M, each of which has only one feature, j, k, l and m, respectively. In that case, in what sense is there any "resemblance" among them? But I am rather confused on this point.
Concerning C and D, I realize that they are functionally equivalent in describing the same relationships, but I list them distinctly because I have seen them expressed in these distinct formats. Regardless, neither of them matches my understanding of what Wittgenstein meant by a family resemblance definition.
Based on these different versions that I have seen, I have two related questions:
1. Which of the variations listed above is a valid family resemblance definition in the sense that Wittgenstein originally meant it?
2. Related to options A and B, is there a minimum number of features required for a family resemblance definition?