Q: animal "produce"?

Joel S. Berson Berson at ATT.NET
Sun Nov 23 16:31:31 UTC 2008

Thank you, Arnold.  This is what I thought and feared.  And if it was
traditional in the U.K., I suspect it was also the case in the circa
1740 Charleston, S.C., that I am attempting to write about.


At 11/23/2008 11:17 AM, Arnold Zwicky wrote:
>ordinary english doesn't have a term covering edible flesh in
>general.  instead, there is a folk taxonomy with three divisions:
>meat, poultry, and seafood (fish and shellfish).  traditionally, in
>the U.K., the three types of edible flesh were sold (and perhaps still
>are, in some places) in three different shops, by a butcher, a
>poulterer, and a fishmonger, respectively.  and the three types are
>now sold in different departments of supermarkets (and dairy products
>and eggs in still another).
>in any case, there is certainly a folk taxon taking in meat, poultry,
>and seafood -- we think of them as constituting some kind of class or
>category -- but, as with many higher-level taxa, we don't have an
>ordinary-language term for this category.

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

More information about the Ads-l mailing list