True Blue --now "CHICKEN"

[Jonathan Lighter]

I've looked as deeply into this as anyone can in fifteen minutes and here are my conclusions:

  NOAD - Oxford's attempt to Take Up the White Man's Burden - advises us that besides the gallinaceous sort, a "fowl" may also be "any other domesticated bird kept for its eggs or flesh, e.g., the turkey, duck, goose, and guineafowl."  Since the same source defines "domesticate" as "to tame (an animal) and keep it as a pet or for farm produce," even the Great Auk of Baffin Island could be converted to "fowl" status should I be lucky enough to find one and keep it as a pet (a lifetime goal of mine).

  Moreover, since "fowl" originally meant "bird," I suppose the sky's the limit (so to speak) the farther back we go.

  Then there's "poultry."

  JL




Charles Doyle <cdoyle at UGA.EDU> wrote:
  ---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
Sender: American Dialect Society
Poster: Charles Doyle
Subject: Re: True Blue --now "CHICKEN"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, there WAS that goose who stepped onto a crowded elevator and got peopled most fowly . . . .

I think, in my colonial taxonomy, (even after Bethany's posting) the term "fowl" could include ALL domesticated birds raised for food--pheasants, pigeons, maybe fat swans (to accommodate the palate of Chaucer's pilgrim-monk)--and perhaps even game birds. Not sure about ostriches.

It IS a curious state of affairs when we extraordinarily learned English professors have to look up the key words WITHIN O.E.D. definitions (sort of tacit cross-references) to understand the parochial British dialects of those old guys with their white beards.

--Charlie
___________________________________________________

---- Original message ----
>Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 15:58:09 -0800
>From: Jonathan Lighter
>Subject: Re: True Blue --now "CHICKEN"
>To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
>
____________________________________________
>
>Q: Is a barnyard goose a "fowl" in the U.S. (No puns, smart guy!) If not, why not?
> Who makes these rules?
>
> JL

____________________________________________

If I may speak for Sir James Murray and the other editors of the Oxford English Dictionary, "Gotcha!"

"Fowl, sb....3. The prevailing sense: A ‘barn-door fowl’, a domestic cock or hen; a bird of the genus Gallus. In the U.S. applied also to ‘a domestic duck or turkey’ (Cent. Dict.)."

So its only you (I mean us - I mean we) Colonials who'd be confused.

JL

__________________________________________

>
>Charles Doyle wrote:
>
>I.e., 1827 for CHICKEN n.1.1.d, "A domestic fowl of any age"? That seems like a poor definition. Turkeys and ducks are domestic fowl, but they aren't referred to as chickens.
>
>Why, in the OED (s.v. CHICKEN "Additions Series 1993") does CHICKEN-BREAST gain an entry, when "chicken-leg," "chicken-wing," and the names of other edible chicken parts do not?
>
>--Charlie
>__________________________________________________
>
>---- Original message ----
>>Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 14:54:29 -0800
>>From: Jonathan Lighter
>>Subject: Re: True Blue
>>To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
>
>>
>>Assuming that "ram-chicken" simply means "rooster," it antedates the modern use of "chicken" in OED (1812) by about two generations.
>>
>> JL

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org



---------------------------------
Check out the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org