True Blue --now "CHICKEN"

Tue Nov 14 19:22:38 UTC 2006

To me, "guineafowl" is kind of self-consciously "correct."  My city-boy book-larnin' has me saying "guinea-hen" when it's up to me.  On the other hand, a female "peafowl" is to me ordinarily a "female peacock" rather than a "peahen."

  Cf. British "moorhen,"  a female "moorfowl" as well as a kind of gallinule of either sex.  That gallinule, BTW, is also known as the "water-hen."

  I'm certain there are many contorted layers of sexism implied in these choices, but what the hey?

  JL

Wilson Gray <hwgray at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
  ---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
Sender: American Dialect Society
Poster: Wilson Gray
Subject: Re: True Blue --now "CHICKEN"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FWIW, among black East Texans, the guineafowl is known as the "guinea
hen." DARE's map notes that this term is used in Texas, but has no
"dot" for (North)East Texas on that map. I haven't read the
introductory material to DARE beyond the point at which I found out
that DARE had interviewed a white informant from Marshall, Texas.
Hence, I may be in error in thinking that the map is in error.

-Wilson

On 11/14/06, Jonathan Lighter wrote:
> ---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
> Sender: American Dialect Society
> Poster: Jonathan Lighter
> Subject: Re: True Blue --now "CHICKEN"
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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 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
>

--
Everybody says, "How hard it is that we have to die"---a strange
complaint to come from the mouths of people who have had to live.
-----
Whoever has lived long enough to find out what life is knows how deep
a debt of gratitude we owe to Adam, the first great benefactor of our
race. He brought death into the world.

--Sam Clemens

------------------------------------------------------------
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