Q: animal "produce"?

[Jocelyn Limpert]

I like "produce and animal products" and, although perhaps very slightly
awkward to one's ear at first, it is inclusive and works, given a broad
definition of "animal."

On 11/23/08, Joel S. Berson <Berson at att.net> wrote:
>
> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       "Joel S. Berson" <Berson at ATT.NET>
> Subject:      Re: Q: animal "produce"?
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I'm afraid "meat" doesn't work for me because I
> do distinguish it from "fish" (which is in a
> separate section of my supermarché) and from
> "poultry".  I suspect that in certain places and
> times, one would go to three different
> shops.  And -- pace Wamba -- "meat" is too Saxon
> to go alongside "produce".  :-)
>
> Although I must admit I hadn't thought of honey
> or eggs.  I might use "produce and animal
> products", although that reads
> awkwardly.  Perhaps I will be reduced to
> "plantation products" -- although that may be
> broader than I'd like, since it would include non-edible things.
>
> Joel
>
> At 11/23/2008 02:50 AM, Jocelyn Limpert wrote:
> >Yes, what is wrong with "meat"? That was my original thought. One speaks
> of
> >shopping for both fresh produce and meat.
> >
> >On 11/23/08, Benjamin Barrett <gogaku at ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> > > -----------------------
> > > Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> > > Poster:       Benjamin Barrett <gogaku at IX.NETCOM.COM>
> > > Subject:      Re: Q:  animal "produce"?
> > >
> > >
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > I had the same reaction. Another option is flesh. Neither of those
> > > include animal products like honey, eggs and milk, though. Wikipedia
> > > has an article on "animal products," which carefully covers even items
> > > such as petroleum (not) and civet oil (yes)... BB
> > >
> > > On Nov 22, 2008, at 8:57 PM, Michael Covarrubias wrote:
> > >
> > > > ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> > > > -----------------------
> > > > Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> > > > Poster:       Michael Covarrubias <mcovarru at PURDUE.EDU>
> > > > Subject:      Re: Q:  animal "produce"?
> > > >
> > >
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > what distinction are you looking for that makes "meat" not work?
> > > >
> > > > i suppose there are some for whom "meat" doesn't include poultry or
> > > > seafood. do you make another distinction as well?
> > > >
> > > > michael
> > > >
> > > > Joel S. Berson wrote:
> > > >> I can't think of a word for animal products that is analogous to
> > > >> "produce" for fruits and vegetables.  I am thinking of butchered
> meat
> > > >> or poultry (live or killed) that might be sold at a market
> > > >> shop.  ("Poultry" would be half the battle.)
> > > >>
> > > >> Help!
> > > >> Joel
> > > >>
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> > >
> >
> >------------------------------------------------------------
> >The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>

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