penguin 3

[Robert B. Allen, Jr.]

I always thought that penguin was originally Welsh meaning "white head" and
referred to an auk.
Bob Allen
U of Pittsburgh

potet wrote:

> 1) "Proto-Oceanic *kanawe probably referred to a tern. I believe there are
> extra-Oceanic cognates, but I don't have the information at hand. This
> certainly looks like one." Ross CLARK
>
> Thanks a lot, Ross, for this precious piece of information. It supports the
> theory that Tag. _kanáway_ originally referred to a bird.
> There is no doubt that, as with plants (remember John U. WOLFF's paper),
> names for birds and other animals were loosely used by Austronesians during
> their expansion .
> If or when you get them, could you please quote a couple of terms from which
> *kanawe was reconstructed?
>
> 2) "I wonder if "pajaro bobo" could refer to a booby? My suggestion would be
> that the lexicographers are using "pinguino" with customary looseness, and
> that nobody had ever actually seen a penguin anywhere near the Philippines."
> Ross CLARK
>
> The Spanish lexicographer glosses  _kanáway_ as _pájaro bobo_ = penguin"
> (Noceda & Sanlucar 1860: 81). He doesn't use the term _pengüino_ that is
> entered in modern Spanish dictionaries along with _pájaro bobo_ . The
> Spanish-Tagalog part, that reflects the states of both languages in the
> middle of the 19th Century, has no entries for _pájaro bobo_  or _pengüino_,
> which means that the bird had been extinct long ago.
>
> Now, I suppose that the Spanish lexicographer wouldn't have used the term
> _pájaro_ with _bobo_ if he only meant "moron". At least the Spanish
> dictionaries I have do not gloss _pájaro bobo_ as _bobo_, but as _pengüino_.
> So I am pretty sure that _kanáway_ refererred to the bird, and that it was
> used figuratively in Tagalog - not in Spanish - to refer to a moron.
>
> The first edition of Noceda & Sanlucar's dates back to 1754; it is an
> enriched and edited compilation of all the preceding Spanish lexicographers'
> manuscripts. For instance _kanáway_ "pájaro bobo = penguin" is entered in
> the manuscript left by Francisco de SAN ANTONIO, OFM, who died in 1624. It
> is also entered in the manuscript left by Miguel RUIZ, OP, who died in 1630.
> [Both manuscripts were recently published by the Ateneo de Manila
> University.]
>
> Ruiz's gloss is a little different from San Antonio's: "palabra con que
> llaman a otro animal, bruto, canauay ca, eres un animal. in. ser llamado
> asi. Idem: un pajaro que se llama asi. = a term with which they call
> somebody an animal, a brute [Note that here _animal_ and _bruto_ rather
> refer to a creature deprived of reason than to a cruel one.]. Kanáway ka.
> You are an animal. in [verbal suffix]. to be called thus. Ditto: a bird thus
> called.".
> For Ruiz, the figurative meaning prevailed over the original one.
> Interestingly enough he wasn't able to identify the bird, whereas San
> Antonio was. The problem is did San Antonio make the proper identification?
>
> _Kanáway_ is glossed as _pajaro_ in the finder list of San Buenaventura 's
> Spanish-Tagalog dictionry published in 1613 (p. 640). unfortunately it is
> not mentioned under _pajaro_ in the main part, where some brief descriptions
> are given.
>
> In brief Tag. _kanáway_ referred to an awkward bird - the tern is not - and
> was used figuratively to refer to a stupid person. Therefore I tend to think
> there may have been penguins or penguin-like birds in the Philippines when
> the Spaniards conquered them.
>
> Interestingly enough, French makes a distinction between _manchot_ that
> refers to the antarctic bird and _pingouin_ that refers to the arctic bird.
> [Both are translated as "penguin" in my French-English dictionaries. What is
> the proper term for the arctic bird?]
> Now, the original meaning of _manchot_ is "one-armed or armless", and its
> figurative meaning is "awkward", often used in the negative: Il n'est pas
> manchot. = He is not armless / awkward. > He is quite clever with his hands.
>
> Best regards
>
> Jean-Paul G. POTET. B. P. 46. 92114 CLICHY CEDEX. FRANCE.
>
> P.S. I may have sent Ross CLARCK's message back to the list by mistake. If
> so, please accept my apologies.