Q: animal "produce"?

[Herb Stahlke]

And at least in Michigan the fish category includes muskrat, based on
the myth (can anything about muskrat be an urban legend) that the Pope
declared it so after being told by French settlers that it lived in
the water and therefore should be a fish.  For a note on this, see
http://www.monroeboatclub.org/amuskratbecomesafish.htm.

Herb

On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 12:21 PM,  <RonButters at aol.com> wrote:
> ---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       RonButters at AOL.COM
> Subject:      Q: animal "produce"?
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> For what its worth, in the 18th century, shellfish were indeed included in=20
> the "fish" category, though modern scientific taxonomies do not. Sharks are=20=
> not=20
> even fish today. The ordinary language term, such as it is, would have to be=
> =20
> "flesh" or just "meat" (poultry is certainly "meat," and I think a case coul=
> d=20
> 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.=A0 This is what I thought and feared.=A0 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.
>>=20
>> Joel
>>=20
>> At 11/23/2008 11:17 AM, Arnold Zwicky wrote:
>> >ordinary english doesn't have a term covering edible flesh in
>> >general.=A0 instead, there is a folk taxonomy with three divisions:
>> >meat, poultry, and seafood (fish and shellfish).=A0 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.=A0 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.
>>=20
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>>=20
>>=20
>
>
>
>
> **************
> One site has it all. Your email accounts, your social networks,=20
> and the things you love. Try the new AOL.com=20
> today!(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212962939x1200825291/aol?red=
> ir=3Dhttp://www.aol.com/?optin=3Dnew-dp
> %26icid=3Daolcom40vanity%26ncid=3Demlcntaolcom00000001)
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>

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