Why is it that only mammal flesh is named independantly of the animal? I mean, when you eat a trout or a chicken you are eating trout or chicken, respectively, but when you eat a cow you are required to refer to it as beef (or veal if you subscribe to the "younger = tastier" philosophy).
There are exceptions like buffalo or bear or even moose, but for the most part you have to think of a different name for what you are eating, or three different names in the case of pig (god help you if you call your ham "pork").
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Well, you see, it's like this. Back in 16-ought-12, the Noun Allocation Society of New Olde Westministership had a bit of a kerfluffle with their data storage system. They began allocating nouns to things that had already been named, hence the whole beef=cow debacle. It was a terrible time in the Society's history, and I hear tell its contemporary members are sent into quite a titter whenever one brings up that ill-fated event.
Post a Comment