Taboo replacements

Robert Whiting whiting at cc.helsinki.fi
Tue Apr 27 14:13:18 UTC 1999


On Tue, 13 Apr 1999, Steve Gustafson wrote:

>Robert Whiting wrote:

>>The classic example of this (hunting-taboo replacement by a more
>>general word) is often taken from English "deer", originally the
>>general Germanic word for 'wild animal' (cf. Ger. "Tier") which
>>by being used as a euphemism for the hunted animal has come to be
>>specialized in that meaning, with the original meaning being
>>taken up by loanwords ("animal, beast").

>I suppose the question is, what justifies calling any of these
>processes a 'taboo?'

First, they are based on superstition; that is, the belief, not
based on reason or knowledge, in the ominous significance in the
ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance,
occurrence, proceeding, or the like.  So the question becomes
whether a superstitious prohibition is a taboo or not.  There are
numerous taboos that are based on reason or knowledge (at least
empirical knowledge), so a taboo does not have to be superstitious.
But I think hunting taboos by and large are.  Hunters tend to be
a superstitious lot -- apparently always have been and still are.
The superstition here is that if you mention the "true" name of
an animal when hunting (or even if you are in the wild for some
other purpose) something bad will happen.  There are two opposing
superstitions:  If you mention the "true" name of a ferocious
animal, you are likely to call it forth when you are not prepared
for it.  If you mention the "true" name of an animal that you are
hunting, it is likely to hear its name and be warned.  This has
already been stated in print by J. Knobloch, "Der Mensch -- und
die indogermanische Jaegersprache," _Studia Etymologica
Indoeuropaea_ (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 45, Louvain:
Peeters Press, 1991), 155:

     In der Jaegersprache erfolgen solche Umschreibungen
     einerseits aus der Furcht, der wahre Name des Tiers
     koennte dieses anlocken, aber auch aus dem primitiven
     Glauben heraus, die Jagdtiere verstuenden die
     Menschensprache und waeren durch die Nennun ihrer
     Namen gewarnt.

I think of the first of these as the "Speak of the Devil"
syndrome.  The very mention of something calls it forth.  In
Arabic one does not mention something unpleasant lest it actually
come to pass.  If one has to mention something unpleasant one
adds ma:sha:'alla:h "what(ever) God (wills)."  In English one
generally adds "God forbid" to ward off the danger.  This danger
of inadvertent calling forth is complemented by the belief that
knowledge of the "true" name of something gives you power over
it; power to call it forth and make it do your bidding.  I think
of this as the "Rumpelstiltskin" syndrome.  This power creates
a taboo against using the "true" name in vain, both through fear
of calling the spirit of the named thing accidentally and through
fear of losing the power by using it frivolously.

Paleolithic cave art would seem to indicate that this communication
with the spirit of the hunted animal through solemn ritual was
part of the preparation for a successful hunt.  It was only
during such solemn rituals that the "true" name of the hunted
animal would be used.  If this, admittedly speculative,
reconstruction is correct, then hunting taboos of this type were
originally religious or ritual taboos and would have had a very
long history (or prehistory).

>I can think of few literary or historical sources suggesting that
>the "hart" --- a word which, of course, was still current in
>Shakespeare's and King James' English, and thanks to literary
>preservation, remains understood today --- was an object of
>particular reverence, awe, terror, or disgust, so that the -vox
>propria- became somehow too hallowed for everyday use, or too
>indecent.  This would be an excellent test for the hypothesis, in
>that it took place during recorded history, among literate
>people, whose religious and social customs are set forth in many
>sources.

With the second type of prohibition against mentioning the hunted
animal's name, in which it is believed that the animal will hear
its name and be warned, there is less of a ritual element and
hence less reason for calling it a taboo.  But it is still a
superstitious prohibition.  It is not a matter of reverence, awe,
terror, or disgust.  It is a simple prohibition against the
possibility that the quarry may hear its "true" name and thereby
know that it is being hunted.  Again, in Arabic one does not ask
after the health of member's of a friend's family by name, lest
the evil spirits hear the names and decide to take an interest in
them.

Buck, DSS, has some thoughts on whether these shifts in animal
names are a result of taboo or not.  On pp. 135-36 he has this to
say:

     The loss of certain inherited animal names, like that of the
     'bear' in Slavic and Germanic and those for 'wolf',
     'serpent', 'hare', and 'mouse' here and there is attributed
     to taboo (cf. esp. Meillet, Ling. hist. 281 ff.).  This has
     doubtless played a part in individual cases.  But one
     hesitates to make too much of this factor when one observes
     that virtually every inherited animal name (and for that
     matter nearly every inherited word in other classes, as in
     the words of relationship, etc.) has been displaced in one
     or another of the IE languages.  The IE word for 'horse'
     attested in most IE languages in the early period (Grk.
     hippos, Lat. equus, etc. 3.41) has been displaced in every
     modern European language (only the fem. Sp. yegua, Rum.
     iapa\<breve> 'mare' surviving), and no one will ascribe this
     to taboo. [This last has already been discussed on the list.]

But while Buck advises caution in ascribing shifts of animal
names to taboo replacement, Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1995) have
jumped back on the taboo replacement bandwagon with a vengeance.
According to G & I (pp. 437-38) "hart" (and cognates in other
Germanic languages, Latin, and Celtic) is already a taboo
replacement for the PIE words for 'deer' based on a root *el-,
*ol- with various suffixes, and point out that Iranian and Slavic
made the same semantic shift from 'deer' to 'horned/antlered
animal' (although using different roots).  But if G & I are right
(ibid.) that the PIE words are based on a root meaning 'brown,
red', then this looks like it too is already a replacement of
yet another word for 'deer'.  Bomhard and Kearns reconstruct
a Proto-Nostratic root *?il-/*?el- for 'hoofed, cud-chewing
animal' (this is a description of its use, not a meaning) (p.
582, no. 452.).  PAA cognates include words for 'ram' and
'sheep', but this is not unexpected, as in IE "horned animal" is
used not only for hart, 'stag' but for other horned animals as
well (cf. Lith. karve' 'cow' vs. Lat cervus 'stag'; ON hru:tr
'ram' vs. ON hjo,rtr 'stag', etc.).

One could propose for English 'stag/deer' the following history:
The "true" name of the 'stag/deer' --> ... --> "the brown/red
one" (PN ~ PIE *el-/*ol-) --> "the horned one" (late PIE
dialectal from PIE k^er-) --> "the animal" (beginning in OE,
complete by Modern English with "hart" marginalized and archaic).
The ... stands for an indefinite number of shifts (which might be
zero) prior to those that can be reconstructed.

>-Taboo- has a relatively specific meaning in cultural
>anthropology; does this linguistic process fit that definition?

The linguistic process is just a prohibition against using a
certain word.  It may be from reverence (the name of God),
superstition (hunting, gambling), or disgusting or embarrassing
(bodily functions) or distressing (death, etc.) connotations.
Whether these would match the cultural anthropological
definitions in all cases, I don't know (but I doubt it).
Linguistic taboo is often a matter of good manners and manners
change like everything else.

One of the things that makes taboo a likely factor in the
replacement of some animal names is the repeated shifts.  This is
characteristic of linguistic taboo replacement.  The connection
between the euphemism and the taboo term becomes so well
established that a euphemism for the euphemism has to be found
and so on ad infinitum.  I doubt that this is paralleled by
cultural anthropological taboo.

<snip>

Bob Whiting
whiting at cc.helsinki.fi



More information about the Indo-european mailing list