Basic distinctions: No word for "eat"

Discussion of natural languages, or language in general.
Post Reply
User avatar
So Haleza Grise
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 432
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2002 11:17 pm

Basic distinctions: No word for "eat"

Post by So Haleza Grise »

This is an interesting paper that claims the Maniq language (Austronesian) has no basic verb that translates "to eat"; rather there are several specific verbs depending on the foodstuff being consumed:

hãw (eg. rice)
kap (eg. animal flesh)
lɨk (eg. mangoes)

Something that occurs to me is that when people develop highly specific vocabularies for conlangs, they often emphasise specialised nouns rather than specialised verbs. According to this paper, though, Maniq has a preference for basic verbs with a high level of specificity.
Duxirti petivevoumu tinaya to tiei šuniš muruvax ulivatimi naya to šizeni.

User avatar
gach
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 472
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2003 11:03 am
Location: displaced from Helsinki

Re: Basic distinctions: No word for "eat"

Post by gach »

Thanks, I have to put that on my reading list.

At a quick glance it seems that the language has developed a family of classificatory verbs around the basic meaning of ingestion. That's not that different from the classificatory existentials and handling verbs that are found in many other languages. The choice of the basic verb meaning is more exotic here, but on the other hand it's not that far from the alimentary classification in possessive constructions that's found across the Oceanic family. I might think of stealing something like this for some of my conlangs.

However, the paper divides the non-human ingestion verbs according to their agents, which doesn't necessarily fit that well with the picture I described above. Prototypically verbal classification is done for the S/O argument of the verb and not the A. But even here you might think that a given animal only eats certain types of food and thus the verbs still work ultimately by O-based classification. I have to read the paper properly to say more about this.

BTW, Maniq belongs to the Aslian branch of the Austroasiatic family. Not Austronesian then, but also somehow not surprising for having semantic weirdness going on. The closely related Jahai language is famously reported to have basic vocabulary for flavours of odour.

Sumelic
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 385
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 7:05 pm

Re: Basic distinctions: No word for "eat"

Post by Sumelic »

gach wrote: However, the paper divides the non-human ingestion verbs according to their agents, which doesn't necessarily fit that well with the picture I described above. Prototypically verbal classification is done for the S/O argument of the verb and not the A. But even here you might think that a given animal only eats certain types of food and thus the verbs still work ultimately by O-based classification. I have to read the paper properly to say more about this.
German has different words for "eat" depending on the agent, right? Essen vs. fressen.

User avatar
gach
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 472
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2003 11:03 am
Location: displaced from Helsinki

Re: Basic distinctions: No word for "eat"

Post by gach »

Sure, and that's easy to explain simply as a feature of the lexicon without needing to describe a deeper grammatical model. With more complicated patterns, like in Maniq, it becomes much more interesting to consider coherent models for what's happening with the word choices. Here I was musing how well the Maniq verbs could be understood as typical classificatory verbs, which in the languages that have them don't classify the agent.

User avatar
Hakaku
Lebom
Lebom
Posts: 132
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 12:55 pm
Location: 常世

Re: Basic distinctions: No word for "eat"

Post by Hakaku »

I wonder what they would use if they were eating, say, both rice and meat in a meal. Would they use a more generic verb to say "eat rice and meat", or would they say "eat1 rice and eat2 meat"? Kind of like how we have "eat rice and drink water" vs "consume rice and water".
Chances are it's Ryukyuan (Resources).

Vijay
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 2244
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2016 3:25 pm
Location: Austin, TX, USA

Re: Basic distinctions: No word for "eat"

Post by Vijay »

Hakaku wrote:would they say "eat1 rice and eat2 meat"?
That's what I would expect. EDIT: Although note that one can also have more cultural importance than the other. For example, in Malayalam, if you ate a meal of rice, meat (or fish), vegetables, and buttermilk (so basically, a normal meal), it would be entirely normal to say "I ate rice" to refer to all of that, because the rice is the main part of the meal and everything else is just stuff to accompany it.

Mam (Mayan) also has no one verb meaning 'eat' and instead has four verbs depending on what you're eating: cho, lo, waa', and k'ux. IIRC, waa' is used for staple foods (so basically corn tortillas, but also by extension wheat tortillas, bread, and maybe rice and such), cho is used for things that accompany it (meat, sauces, vegetable dishes, etc.), lo is used for fruits and most sweet things, and k'ux is used for snacks (including candy and white ants :D).

One time in a college class, we got a homework assignment where the first problem was to figure out when to use each of these four verbs using a list of foods that could go with each. After everyone got a copy of the assignment, the professor explained how you don't "eat" things in Mam, "you cho 'em or you lo 'em or you waa' them or you k'ux them!" Then one of my classmates asked, "What's the difference between them?" and she said, "Well, guess what your homework is!" :P

User avatar
gach
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 472
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2003 11:03 am
Location: displaced from Helsinki

Re: Basic distinctions: No word for "eat"

Post by gach »

Hakaku wrote:I wonder what they would use if they were eating, say, both rice and meat in a meal. Would they use a more generic verb to say "eat rice and meat", or would they say "eat1 rice and eat2 meat"? Kind of like how we have "eat rice and drink water" vs "consume rice and water".
The paper has this to say in the conclusions concerning that issue,
Wnuk (2016) wrote:Further insights into this issue can be gained by taking into account the distinct meal habits of the community and the typical composition of meals. This has been suggested by Burenhult and Kruspe (2016) for related Aslian hunter-gatherer groups. According to this account, the existence of specific verbs is linked to the fact that meals in hunter-gatherer communities typically do not involve elaborate combinations of different foodstuffs, but are often instances of “opportunistic ingestion of a single resource” (Burenhult & Kruspe, 2016, p. 194). This would suggest further that “there is no culturally salient type of ingestion event for which a general concept or label “eat” seems necessary” (Burenhult & Kruspe, 2016, p. 194).
It's possible that there just hasn't been a need for combining different manners of eating in everyday Maniq speech. However, there's also the following passage in the paper,
In cases, where these parameters are unknown, speakers typically employ the verb hãw (cf. Table 1), which is the most frequent ingestion verb with the broadest range of application. Note, though, that this verb is not a true generic term similar to eat and cannot be used in contexts where other verbs apply (cf. the verb ɡey in Jahai; Burenhult & Kruspe, 2016, p. 180).
So while there aren't any real generic eat verbs, the verb hãw does have some use as a default term and would presumably be the most natural source for a generic eat verb if the language will ever develop a need for one.

I read the paper fully in the morning and the system it describes is quite fascinating. It's clearly some flavour of a classificatory verb system, but using manner as the categorising parameter (as opposed to more physical parameters like shape or consistency) isn't typical. On their own, the human consumption verbs fit quite well into the grammar of classificatory verbs. Their choice is determined by their object and amongst themselves the manner of consumption correlates really well with the perceived consistency of the thing being ingested. The animal consumption verbs are different, however, and seem to relate even more directly to the manner of eating. Also the way how the human verbs are used with certain animals indicates that the underlying classificatory theme throughout the consumption verbs is manner. What I find especially notable is the change from object to agent classification between humans and animals and how an otherwise unchanged verb will go through this transition when it's used with both human and animal agents. The whole system of these Maniq verbs seems to live at some fringe of the grammar of more typical classificatory systems. Now to find that Burenhult & Kruspe paper on Jahai.

User avatar
Imralu
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1640
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 9:14 pm
Location: Berlin, Germany

Re: Basic distinctions: No word for "eat"

Post by Imralu »

In DGS, eating is represented by classificatory verbs that indicate the manner of eating - but there is also a generic "eat" used in sentences such as "What do you want to eat?"
Glossing Abbreviations: COMP = comparative, C = complementiser, ACS / ICS = accessible / inaccessible, GDV = gerundive, SPEC / NSPC = specific / non-specific
________
MY MUSIC

User avatar
2+3 clusivity
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 454
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:34 pm

Re: Basic distinctions: No word for "eat"

Post by 2+3 clusivity »

Somewhat on point: I seem to remember a discussion about a year ago of a language or a few languages using a null root for "eat."
linguoboy wrote:So that's what it looks like when the master satirist is moistened by his own moutarde.

User avatar
Jonlang
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 305
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 11:21 am
Location: Cymru
Contact:

Re: Basic distinctions: No word for "eat"

Post by Jonlang »

Is English remarkable for having verbs for eat, drink and consume?
My conlangery Twitter: @Jonlang_
Me? I'm just a lawn-mower; you can tell me by the way I walk.

hwhatting
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 2315
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2002 2:49 am
Location: Bonn, Germany

Re: Basic distinctions: No word for "eat"

Post by hwhatting »

dyolf wrote:Is English remarkable for having verbs for eat, drink and consume?
At least not among European languages, those I know all have similar distinctions.

User avatar
Xephyr
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 821
Joined: Sat May 03, 2003 3:04 pm

Re: Basic distinctions: No word for "eat"

Post by Xephyr »

Xhosa has two words for drink: sela 'drink cool beverage' and phunga 'drink warm beverage'. IIRC Yup'ik also has this distinction. Is this more common than having multiple 'eat' distinctions?
"It will not come by waiting for it. It will not be said, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is.' Rather, the Kingdom of the Father is spread out upon the earth, and men do not see it."
The Gospel of Thomas

Post Reply