Q: animal "produce"?

RonButters at AOL.COM RonButters at AOL.COM
Sun Nov 23 17:21:11 UTC 2008

For what its worth, in the 18th century, shellfish were indeed included in 
the "fish" category, though modern scientific taxonomies do not. Sharks are not 
even fish today. The ordinary language term, such as it is, would have to be 
"flesh" or just "meat" (poultry is certainly "meat," and I think a case could 
be made for extending the term to fish as well?

In a message dated 11/23/08 11:32:08 AM, Berson at ATT.NET writes:

> 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.
> Joel
> 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

One site has it all. Your email accounts, your social networks, 
and the things you love. Try the new AOL.com 

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

More information about the Ads-l mailing list