[Lexicog] What is a bat? - natural and unnatural terms

[Koontz John E]

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, Christopher Brewster wrote:
> There is a story I remember that a rodent in Venezuela or somewhere in
> that part of the world spends all its time in the water to the extent
> that the locals have recategorized as fish for fasting purposes (they
> are Catholics). I am not sure whether the church agree or not.
>
> Can someone confirm this?

I think I've heard this in regard to things like the capybara, but don't
recall the context.  I've also encountered this in animal guides in regard
to the beaver in Mediaeval Europe.  It is sometimes offered as an
explanation for the near extinction of the native variety.  Of course, all
those tunnels and dams annoy the heck out of agriculturalists, too.

> This seems to imply that all categories are a matter of perpspective and
> purpose even when it comes to classifying an animal a fish or not.

I think this sort of classification is thought of even in native contexts
as a legal quibble, rather than as authentic folk classification, though
these latter are often at odds with Linnaean practice.

For example, Ken Miner's rather succinct Winnebago Field Lexicon suggests
in passing that bats are classified there with moths.  Another entry
mentions owls in the same breath with ducks, presumably tree ducks, which
also live in holes in trees.

I think Wierzbicka's test for membership of a form in a category is
ability to make a reference to the form with the appropriate cover term,
e.g., whatever cover term one is rendering as bird.  Unfortunately,
Miner's lists doesn't give a cover term for bats and moths.  I do know
that most Plains and Northeastern groups seem to distinguish 'small birds'
or 'birds' from 'large birds' and sometimes certain birds, e.g., eagles,
are excluded from the latter class and set apart, too, though I forget the
details.  There's an excellent article on this in the Plains
Anthropologist, from the 80s, I think.  The title is something like 'The
Ornithology of Cheyenne Religionists'.

I suppose in the case of beaver-fish the test would be the ability to
refer to a beaver as a fish without smiling slightly. Or with no audible
quotation marks?




------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Z1wmxD/DREIAA/yQLSAA/HKE4lB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->


Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lexicographylist/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    lexicographylist-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/