<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">As already mentioned, English usage is variable; for this native (British) English speaker ‘animal’ in non-scientific discourse <div class="">applies almost exclusively to mammals, and definitely does not include birds, fish, insects, etc. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">In several West African languages the word for ‘animal’ also means ‘meat’, e.g. Yoruba <i class="">ẹran</i> /ɛɾɑ̃/ which applies</div><div class="">primarily but not exclusively to domesticated animals, like goats and cattle, and also to meat and also human muscle.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Ian</div><div class=""> <br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Oct 13, 2018, at 12:50 PM, Daniel Ross <<a href="mailto:djross3@gmail.com" class="">djross3@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="">David (and others),</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">As already indicated by some replies, English is not that simple. In fact, there is a huge amount of variation between speakers. As a child I was interested in reading about animals (encyclopedias, etc.) and going to zoos, and for me personally the wide, encompassing definition (all the way through sponges!) would apply. But I remember being in disagreements with other speakers who don't find insects (or 'lower' groups) to count, and some don't even count fish. It seems that the definition operates as a prototype, with some speakers accepting a wider group (in effect radiating down the hierarchy) and others keeping the narrower prototypical group, maybe even just synonymous with "mammals" for some. Some survey research on the exact distribution (with a very large sample, including different education levels, etc.) would be warranted here to make any strong generalizations. There's also a puzzle at the other end of the hierarchy, where humans are technically animals but many are reluctant to mention or even accept that. At the same time, many or most speakers probably recognize that there is a technical definition, so this is also a question of register/context, and it might be variable within speakers. It would also be worth looking at other similar terms like "bug" in English, which to me is essentially synonymous with "insect" (and I guess including other land-arthorpods), but for some speakers I think would extend further. As you asked, David, trying to find terms for other parts of the hierarchy is relevant.<br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Thanks for sharing an interesting question!</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Daniel<br class=""></div></div><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="">On Sat, Oct 13, 2018 at 11:43 AM Peter Arkadiev <<a href="mailto:peterarkadiev@yandex.ru" class="">peterarkadiev@yandex.ru</a>> wrote:<br class=""></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="">Dear All,</div><div class=""> </div><div class="">I'm afraid that the "animals, birds and fish" test does not really work, because one easily finds apparently contradicting examples "birds, snakes and other animals" suggesting that "birds" and "snakes" are "animals".</div><div class="">(I am not claiming that I know how to interpret this discrepancy, I only point out the potential difficulty, which, I am sure, will pop up in other languages as well.)</div><div class=""> </div><div class="">Best regards,</div><div class=""> </div><div class="">Peter</div><div class=""> </div><div class="">-- </div><div class="">Peter Arkadiev, PhD</div><div class="">Institute of Slavic Studies</div><div class="">Russian Academy of Sciences</div><div class="">Leninsky prospekt 32-A 119991 Moscow</div><div class=""><a href="mailto:peterarkadiev@yandex.ru" target="_blank" class="">peterarkadiev@yandex.ru</a></div><div class=""><a href="http://inslav.ru/people/arkadev-petr-mihaylovich-peter-arkadiev" target="_blank" class="">http://inslav.ru/people/arkadev-petr-mihaylovich-peter-arkadiev</a></div><div class=""> </div><div class=""> </div><div class=""> </div><div class="">13.10.2018, 21:17, "David Gil" <<a href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de" target="_blank" class="">gil@shh.mpg.de</a>>:</div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class=""><p class="">So from the comments by Hartmut (below) and Östen a short while ago, it is becoming clear that I was a little cavalier in my initial statement to the effect than English "animal" refers to 1-7 and maybe 8. Interestingly, though, German "Tier" apparently does. Also, there may possibly be a split between Hartmut's Danish "dyr" (1-7) and Östen's Swedish "djur" (1 only) — though I now see some further discussion that calls this into question.</p><p class="">The observations that have been offered about the semantic range of English "animal" have already provided me with a solution to the problem that motivated my original posting. Under the (apparently) false assumption that English has a single word for 1-7/8, it was a problem for the proposed notion of higher animal (covering 1-4/5) that there seemed to be no simple word for it. But if indeed ontological categories such as living creature (covering 1-7/8) can exist without a simple word to designate them, then it is not a problem for the proposed notion of higher animal that there would seem not to be a single word for that category — at least from what I have been able to gather so far.</p><p class="">Still, it would be nice if somebody came through with a language that had a simple basic word for higher animals (1-4/5), so I welcome further comments and discussion on this thread!</p> <div class="">On 13/10/2018 20:00, Hartmut Haberland wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">Three comments:</div><div class="">In German, 1.-7. would work. </div><div class="">Where are fish like plaice, turbot, or eel? Category 2a?</div><div class="">My wife, L1 speaker of English, often commented on my typical German concept of Tier (1.-7.), when I referred to birds, fish and insects as animals which I stopped doing now. </div><div class="">Turbots have more axes of symmetry than anyone who ever filleted one for sushi will agree with me are convenient. </div><div class="">In my opinion, the cut-off point for English is after 1.</div><div class="">I use Danish dyr like German Tier and nobody ever commented on it in 40+ years. </div><div class="">What about bacteria (6a)? At least they move. </div><div class="">Hartmut</div><div class="">Den 13. okt. 2018 kl. 18.35 skrev David Gil <<a href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de" target="_blank" class="">gil@shh.mpg.de</a>>:<br class=""> </div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""> <br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span lang="EN-US" class="">Dear all,</span></div><p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class=""> </p><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span lang="EN-US" class="">I am interested in exploring, cross-linguistically, the semantic range of words that correspond more or less to the English word "animal".</span></div><p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class=""><span lang="EN-US" class=""> </span></p><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span lang="EN-US" class="">Here are examples of the things that English "animal" refers to:</span></div><p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class=""><span lang="EN-US" class=""> </span></p><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span lang="EN-US" class="">1. dog, kangaroo, lizard, frog ...</span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span lang="EN-US" class="">2. eagle, sparrow, chicken, bat ...</span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span lang="EN-US" class="">3. bee, scorpion, spider, centipede ...</span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span lang="EN-US" class="">4. crab, shrimp ...</span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span lang="EN-US" class="">5. worm, leech ...</span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span lang="EN-US" class="">6. starfish, jellyfish, squid, octopus ...</span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span lang="EN-US" class="">7. oyster, clam ...</span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span lang="EN-US" class="">8. sponge (?) ...</span></div><p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class=""><span lang="EN-US" class=""> </span></p><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span lang="EN-US" class="">I am looking for examples of languages in which the basic word closest to English "animal" is nevertheless different in its coverage.<span class=""> </span>In particular, I would like to find instances — if such exist — of languages in which there is a basic word that covers the examples in 1-4 (or maybe 1-5) to the exclusion of those in 5-8 (or maybe 6-8).<span class=""> </span><span class=""> </span>(Note that the question concerns every-day words that reflect our naive folk biological knowledge, not with scientific terms in those few languages that have such terminology.)</span></div><p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class=""><span lang="EN-US" class=""> </span></p><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span lang="EN-US" class="">Some words of background:<span class=""> </span>A colleague and I working in experimental cognitive science have found (non-linguistic) empirical evidence for the psychological reality of an ontological category that consists roughly of animals of the kind exemplified in 1-4 (and possibly also 5).<span class=""> </span>We are calling this category "higher animals".<span class=""> </span>The characteristic prototypical features of higher animals include a single axis of symmetry, the existence of head, torso and limbs, a face in the front of the head that includes sensory organs such as eyes, and a mouth for eating, and the ability to move forward in the direction that the head is facing. <span class=""> </span>A challenge that we face is that, in the (few) languages that we are familiar with, there is no simple word for higher animals.<span class=""> </span>But we are hoping that other languages might have such a word.<span class=""> </span>in addition, we would also welcome grammatical evidence for the category of higher animals, for example in the form of grammatical rules that are sensitive to the animacy hierarchy by making reference to a cut-off point between higher and other animals.</span></div><p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class=""><span lang="EN-US" class=""> </span></p><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span lang="EN-US" class="">I look forward to your responses.<span class=""> </span>Thanks,</span></div><p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class=""><span lang="EN-US" class=""> </span></p><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span lang="EN-US" class="">David</span></div><pre class="">--
David Gil
Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution
Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History
Kahlaische Strasse 10, 07745 Jena, Germany
Email: <a href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de" target="_blank" class="">gil@shh.mpg.de</a>
Office Phone (Germany): <span class="">+49-3641686834</span>
Mobile Phone (Indonesia): <span class="">+62-81281162816</span>
</pre></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><span class="">_______________________________________________</span><br class=""><span class="">Lingtyp mailing list</span><br class=""><span class=""><a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank" class="">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a></span><br class=""><span class=""><a href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" target="_blank" class="">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a></span></div></blockquote></blockquote> <pre class="">--
David Gil
Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution
Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History
Kahlaische Strasse 10, 07745 Jena, Germany
Email: <a href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de" target="_blank" class="">gil@shh.mpg.de</a>
Office Phone (Germany): <span class="">+49-3641686834</span>
Mobile Phone (Indonesia): <span class="">+62-81281162816</span>
</pre></div>,<p class="">_______________________________________________<br class="">Lingtyp mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank" class="">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br class=""><a href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" target="_blank" class="">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a></p></blockquote>_______________________________________________<br class="">
Lingtyp mailing list<br class="">
<a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank" class="">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br class="">
<a href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><br class="">
</blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">Lingtyp mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" class="">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br class="">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""><div class="">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; line-height: normal; border-spacing: 0px;"><div class=""><div class="">Ian Maddieson</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Department of Linguistics</div><div class="">University of New Mexico</div><div class="">MSC03-2130</div><div class="">Albuquerque NM 87131-0001</div><div class=""><br class=""></div></div><div class=""><br class=""></div></span><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<br class=""></div></body></html>