Animal-Vegetable-Mineral

[Bryan]

So, in English we have the paradigm ANIMAL-VEGETABLE-MINERAL, where the first two items are living, but the distinction being the first draw "breath" (not necessarily accurate 100%, but that's the etymology of "animal", so anyway).

The thing is, "vegetable" sub-divides into various categories, too: fungus, fruit... vegetable(!)

So, vegetable is both the term for living things which are not animals, and also an underterm of itself, meaning non-fruit and non-fungus non-breathing living stuff.

So, MY QUESTION:

My artlang currently has a separate words for English "vegetable", one meaning "living non-animal stuff", and the other meaning "not-fruit-not-fungus-that-is-carrots etc". DO ANY NATLANGS MAKE THIS DISTINCTION? Or is there always semantic vaguery?

[Soap]

I think most people, including scientists, assumed that fungi were vegetables until fairly recently. In fact it turns out theyre more closely related to animals than to plants, but almost no one would consider this realization to be intuitive. Also I havent heard "animal/vegetable/mineral" since fifth grade, it seems to have originated in the primitive bio-sciences of the 1700s when people didnt know much about biology.

[Gulliver]

Semi-relatedly: even animal isn't clear-cut in English, as some people people distinguish fish and animal quite vehemently. "Vegetarians can eat fish because that's not an animal, and turkey because fowl is not meat."

[Aurora Rossa]

Semi-relatedly: even animal isn't clear-cut in English, as some people people distinguish fish and animal quite vehemently. "Vegetarians can eat fish because that's not an animal, and turkey because fowl is not meat."

Whoa, really? I heard of Catholics eating fish on Friday because they didn't consider it meat for convoluted theological reasons. It surprises me to hear of vegetarians doing the same thing and even extending it to birds.

[Soap]

Radius Solis told us a story on IRC once about a friend of his who talked about why he chose to be vegetarian, while eating a tuna sandwich. I think its less common to eat poultry and claim to be vegetarian but it apparently does happen. For those people it may just be a dislike of red meat and not connected to the animal rights movement, particularly since the animal rights movement considers chickens the most abused animals of all, since they are commonly found packed in dark, tight cages whereas larger animals at least have the freedom to roam around.


Click for larger image

[Jipí]

I've always taken the claim that fish isn't meat to be an excuse for eating meat protein-rich connective tissue of non-human vertebrate life on fasting days (like Friday, traditionally, AFAIK). A similar excuse is meat baked into dough so that God won't see it.

[Bryan]

Semi-relatedly: even animal isn't clear-cut in English, as some people people distinguish fish and animal quite vehemently. "Vegetarians can eat fish because that's not an animal, and turkey because fowl is not meat."

Indeed! You're quite right! and it extends to the ***flesh** of the animal, too. That is to say, many people refer to fish meat as "fish", and use "meat" to refer to the flesh of other animals.

It's so weird; why the special plaice* for fish?

I've never heard anyone say fowl is not meat, altho I have with fish; however, poultry **is** felt somehow to be different to other meats, tho.

By the way, "vegetarians" who eat fish, ahem, irritate me slightly [read: a lot]; you are PESCATARIANS, FOO'S! Or, let's be honest, "fussy meat-eaters".









*sorry for the fish pun.

[Bob Johnson]

Fish aren't cute, they don't count.

Furthermore humans aren't mere meat, they have souls. It is therefore safe to eat them on Fridays.

[Bryan]

I've always taken the claim that fish isn't meat to be an excuse for eating meat protein-rich connective tissue of non-human vertebrate life on fasting days (like Friday, traditionally, AFAIK). A similar excuse is meat baked into dough so that God won't see it.

lulz

[EDIT]
By the way, Soap, I think you may be right; in more primitive times, it might not have made any sense to distinguish the terms I am talking about. However, I don't think it's inconceivable, and given my conculture is rather advanced, I think I might just pull it off.

anyway, so does any natlang clearly distinguish them?

[Bryan]

Fish aren't cute, they don't count.

Furthermore humans aren't mere meat, they have souls. It is therefore safe to eat them on Fridays.

I dispute this, and I will use the Bible* to do so if you make me (not really, I can't be bothered (and I'm not religious)). I claim the right to eat soulless humans (but only on Tuesdays, of course; what pervert would dine on man on a Wednesday?????!)















*Ecclesiastes seems to refer to humans and beasts as the same. Something like 'who can say the man's spirit goes upwards but the beast's to earth? No! they are one thing, both born of the earth and both will go back to the earth' or summat. Chap 3, I think.

[linguoboy]

Semi-relatedly: even animal isn't clear-cut in English, as some people people distinguish fish and animal quite vehemently. "Vegetarians can eat fish because that's not an animal, and turkey because fowl is not meat."

Whoa, really? I heard of Catholics eating fish on Friday because they didn't consider it meat for convoluted theological reasons. It surprises me to hear of vegetarians doing the same thing and even extending it to birds.

Nothing particularly "convoluted" about it. From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Throughout the Latin Church the law of abstinence prohibits all responsible subjects from indulging in meat diet on duly appointed days. Meat diet comprises the flesh, blood, or marrow of such animals and birds as constitute flesh meat according to the appreciation of intelligent and law-abiding Christians. For this reason the use of fish, vegetables, mollusks, crabs, turtles, frogs, and such-like cold-blooded creatures is not at variance with the law of abstinence. Amphibians are relegated to the category whereunto they bear most striking resemblance.

Essentially, this represents an attempt to reconcile a mediaeval taxonomy of living beings with modern biology. In the mediaeval view, there were beasts of the field, worms of the earth, birds of the air, and fish of the waters. They were distinguished primarily by their respective means of locomotion: walking, crawling, flying, and swimming. Secondarily, however, worms and fish lived in earth and water, respectively, which were "cold" elements according to the scheme inherited from the Greeks.

Thus, worms and fish were considered "cold-blooded" creatures. Sometime in the High Middle Ages, "meat" came to be restricted to the flesh of "warm-blooded" animals--beasts and (generally) birds. Worms were considered too "unclean" to ever be eaten, which made "fish" a category of cold-blooded beings whose flesh was nevertheless routinely used as food. Restrictions on the consumption of "meat" were held not to apply to them.

I've read before that waterfowl, because they spent the majority of their time in the water, were considered "cold-blooded" under this schema and, thus, their flesh could be eaten during times of abstinence. But I've never been able to find a reliable citation and, thus, I don't think this was ever a general ruling. The interpretation of the prohibitions has always varied by jurisdiction, so it's possible there were formerly some Christian authorities who allowed the consumption of duck (although perhaps not goose or swan). The RCC is more pragmatic than it's often been painted, so I expect such arrangements--if they existed--would've been most common in inland regions without access to good stocks of fish.

One of the biggest changes over time is that animal products--butter, lard, eggs, etc.--were once considered "meat" according to whether the creatures who produced them were. I've always wondered when and how the ruling changed, since it was obsolete long before I was born. The CE entry only mentions that it changed at some point, although it does helpfully informed us that in the USA "the use of lard or dripping in preparing fish and vegetables at all meals and on all days is allowed by an indult[*] issued 3 August, 1887".

[*] "Indults are general faculties, granted by the Holy See to bishops and others, of doing something not permitted by the common law. General needs, peculiar local conditions, the impossibility of applying to Rome in individual cases, etc., are sufficient reasons for making these concessions."

[TomHChappell]

If we deliberately commit the etymological fallacy:
"Animal" means "has a soul".
"Vegetable" means "useful for sustaining life (e.g. if ingested)".
"Mineral" means "dug out of the ground (e.g. mined for)".

If we use the word "animal" as used in (modern biological) taxonomy, an "animal" is something (multicellular) that eats and respires; Kingdom Animalia contrast mostly with Kingdom Plantae, which are (multicellular) things that photosynthesize. The modern 5-kingdom system also includes funguses (there's a complicated definition, but basically they're multicellular organisms that are neither animals nor plants), Protists (one-celled eukaryotic organisms, many but not most of which would be animals or plants or fungi if they weren't one-celled), and Monerans (prokaryotes).

If we consider how it's used in ordinary English, many people use "animal" to mean "non-human mammal"; they wouldn't call a bird an "animal", nor a reptile nor an amphibian nor a fish, nor any invertebrate. Nor yet would they call another human an "animal", except as an insult or backhanded compliment.

"Vegetable", in ordinary English, is almost always used to mean "edible parts of plants". "Vegetable" is for some reason contrasted with "fruit". What botanists mean by "fruit" is very often labeled "vegetable" instead of "fruit" by ordinary English-speakers.

If we consider how the word "mineral" is used in ordinary English, it's usually some inorganic chemical or inorganic substance.

Lots of minerals are useful for sustaining life if ingested; so are lots of animal-parts.

And I don't think everyone who uses the word "animal" commits to the idea that non-humans have souls; some don't even commit to the idea that humans have them.

If we want the classification "Animal, Vegetable, or Mineral" to be mutually exclusive but also to comprehensively and exhaustively apply to every concrete object, maybe "animal" would mean any biological animal that can move, or any part of such an animal (thus excluding e.g. sponges, which I don't think most people have in mind when they say "animal"); "vegetable" would mean any living thing that's not an "animal" (e.g. sponges, and totally toxic plants and fungi that definitely don't help sustain life when ingested, and protists and bacteria etc.), or any part of such an organism; and "mineral" would mean "any non-living concrete object", thus including, for instance, stars, (which definitely cannot be dug out of the ground).

For this purpose, I think "able to move" is how we should interpret "has a soul".

[linguoboy]

If we consider how it's used in ordinary English, many people use "animal" to mean "non-human mammal"; they wouldn't call a bird an "animal", nor a reptile nor an amphibian nor a fish, nor any invertebrate.

I find this bizarre. Growing up, all my books certainly privileged large mammals in their treatment of "animals", but none excluded birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, or even invertebrates. And I don't know anyone who would interpret "No Animals Allowed" as "I can't take my dog in there, but a Gila monster is okay."

It's true that the OED does include the usage note "Freq. applied specifically to a mammal, as opposed to a bird, reptile, fish, etc.", but the sole example it gives is "The Great Bear Rainforest on the coast of British Columbia is home to thousands of species of plants, birds and animals." I would find a reading of "mammal" for "animal" rather odd there.

[Bob Johnson]

Bible*

Okay, I'll play that game: "All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field", Isaiah 40:6 (KJV). Other translations make clear that "flesh" here means people. Therefore christian vegetarians may eat any kind of flesh, especially human -- and it's as delicious as a flower is beautiful.

[Mecislau]

My artlang currently has a separate words for English "vegetable", one meaning "living non-animal stuff", and the other meaning "not-fruit-not-fungus-that-is-carrots etc". DO ANY NATLANGS MAKE THIS DISTINCTION? Or is there always semantic vaguery?

You mean, like "plant"?




Your whole post absolute puzzled me because using "vegetable" to describe all plants (as opposed to the vegetable-that-isn't-fruit-fungi-or-whatever) sounds flat out wrong to me. A tree, for instance, is not by any stretch of the imagination a "vegetable". And there certainly is no division "animal—vegetable—mineral", though "animal—plant—mineral" seems a lot more reasonable.

[Aurora Rossa]

I've always taken the claim that fish isn't meat to be an excuse for eating meat protein-rich connective tissue of non-human vertebrate life on fasting days (like Friday, traditionally, AFAIK). A similar excuse is meat baked into dough so that God won't see it.

"Hey wait a minute, where did that meat go? If only I had some property of knowing everything, like say omniscience or something."

[Bryan]

If we consider how it's used in ordinary English, many people use "animal" to mean "non-human mammal"; they wouldn't call a bird an "animal", nor a reptile nor an amphibian nor a fish, nor any invertebrate. Nor yet would they call another human an "animal", except as an insult or backhanded compliment.

A really interesting post, Tom, but I'm sorry, the above statement is just whack!! I think everyone I knows would refer to birds, amphibians, reptiles, and fish as "animals"; altho, yes, some would dispute that humans are animals, and would rather say that both "animals" and "humans" are creatures.

For this purpose, I think "able to move" is how we should interpret "has a soul".

A certain presocratic philosopher thoughts that magnets had a soul. Why? Because their power of motion (that is, they move things closer to themselves).

[Bryan]

Bible*

Okay, I'll play that game: "All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field", Isaiah 40:6 (KJV). Other translations make clear that "flesh" here means people. Therefore christian vegetarians may eat any kind of flesh, especially human -- and it's as delicious as a flower is beautiful.

Yes!!!!


By the way, LINGUOBOY, thank you for your above long post; it was very informative.

[Bryan]

My artlang currently has a separate words for English "vegetable", one meaning "living non-animal stuff", and the other meaning "not-fruit-not-fungus-that-is-carrots etc". DO ANY NATLANGS MAKE THIS DISTINCTION? Or is there always semantic vaguery?

You mean, like "plant"?




Your whole post absolute puzzled me because using "vegetable" to describe all plants (as opposed to the vegetable-that-isn't-fruit-fungi-or-whatever) sounds flat out wrong to me. A tree, for instance, is not by any stretch of the imagination a "vegetable". And there certainly is no division "animal—vegetable—mineral", though "animal—plant—mineral" seems a lot more reasonable.

I used "animal-vegetable-mineral" because it is the set phrase one uses. But you're right, "plant". The thing is, people don't really refer to "trees" as "plants" (altho they are "plant-life" or "greenery"); and peopel draw a distinction between plantlife we eat (veg and fruit) versus plantlife we don't.

So, whilst we do have the word "plant", I don't think the semantics of all these words are as clear in their use by native English speakers as we might want.

[TomHChappell]

If we consider how it's used in ordinary English, many people use "animal" to mean "non-human mammal"; they wouldn't call a bird an "animal", nor a reptile nor an amphibian nor a fish, nor any invertebrate. Nor yet would they call another human an "animal", except as an insult or backhanded compliment.

A really interesting post, Tom, but I'm sorry, the above statement is just whack!! I think everyone I know would refer to birds, amphibians, reptiles, and fish as "animals"; altho, yes, some would dispute that humans are animals, and would rather say that both "animals" and "humans" are creatures.

Odds are, many people are people you don't know.

For this purpose, I think "able to move" is how we should interpret "has a soul".

A certain presocratic philosopher thoughts that magnets had a soul. Why? Because their power of motion (that is, they move things closer to themselves).

Thanks! I didn't know that. Any idea how to find a reference?

[CaesarVincens]

I find it funny that we are arguing about the distinctions that I've only ever heard seriously used in the game "Twenty Questions."
Anyone who is familiar with that game knows those categories as stuff-that-eats-things-and-falls-into-most-biological-classifications-of-animals, plants-and-non-meat-food, and -everything-else-including-man-made-stuff.

That is for the game, "animal" falls pretty close to the biological definition of an animal, and some people might include bacteria and the like into this category (regardless of whether that bacterium photosynthesizes or not), "vegetable" includes not just vegetables proper, but also all edible plant life as well as non-edible plants and often plant-like organisms (such as sponges, corals, and fungi), "mineral" is simply everything that doesn't fit into the first two categories. Some people might admit a fourth, "other" category for things that are less obviously "mineral" (say plastics and products or more abstract concepts).

I wouldn't expect the average English speaker to follow these categories the same way in everyday life. Vegetable in particular will include maybe all edible plants (except obvious fruit like apples, bananas and citrus), but not non-edible plants.

[Jipí]

I think a rough definition would be that culinary vegetables are mostly cooked, while culinary fruit mostly isn't. What do you now with cucumbers, though? Or bananas?

[jmcd]

The thing is, people don't really refer to "trees" as "plants"

IME they most certainly do.

And I agree with CaesarVincens.

[CaesarVincens]

I think a rough definition would be that culinary vegetables are mostly cooked, while culinary fruit mostly isn't. What do you now with cucumbers, though? Or bananas?

Except that tomatoes are considered vegetable by most, while technically being a fruit though rarely cooked (in my experience).

My understanding is that the common definition of a fruit is something that comes from a tree, but is not a seed.
Whereas the technical definition is something edible which encases the seed of the plant. Thus, squash (including cucumber), tomatoes, citrus, apples, pears, bananas, maybe berries, etc. are technically fruit, while roots like carrots and radishes, and leafy greens like spinach and lettuce are vegetables. I'm not sure where potatoes or legumes fall into the categories though.

[Bryan]

Tom:

"Early Greek Philosophy", Jonathan Barnes (2001) Penguin Classics p.xxiii, p12

p12
"Thales...believed that the soul is something which produces motion ... he said that magnets have souls because they move iron"
--Aristotle

Thales, the "first philosopher"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thales