Don't Eat With Your Mouth Full

Where can we live but days?

tree_face
steepholm steepholm
Previous Entry Share Next Entry
The Winged Rabbits of Tokyo
When Borges came up with an imaginary Chinese encyclopedia in his essay on John Wilkins, dividing animals into various overlapping categories, he was probably just parodying Wilkins' own necessarily arbitrary taxonomy in his Real and Philosophical Character (1668). There are plenty of examples there that might have given rise to Borges' famous list:

(a) those belonging to the Emperor, (b) those that are embalmed, (c) those that are tame, (d) pigs, (e) sirens, (f) imaginary animals, (g) wild dogs, (h) those included in this classification, (i) those that are crazy-acting (j), those that are uncountable (k) those painted with the finest brush made of camel hair, (l) miscellaneous, (m) those which have just broken a vase, and (n) those which, from a distance, look like flies.


For example, Wilkins divides dogs according to both breed and use, which might have been perfectly sensible in those pre-Linnaean days but contained the seeds of contradiction and ambiguity, and hence of self-destruction for his beautiful, brittle language, where to name a thing is to place it precisely on a taxonomic chart. I've read Wilkins' book not only in a reprint but also in a folio first edition (they have one in the bowels of the University of Bristol), so I've had the chance to look at the pull-out diagram he provides of the Ark, in which, using the dimensions given in Genesis and working from the assumption that all the species now living in the world must have been able to get aboard, he proves that his language's schema too is sufficiently spacious to provide a linguistic berth not only for all known animals but for those yet to be discovered in the New World. It's awesome, ingenious, and mad.

Which brings us to the Japanese counting system - which could certainly have supplied Borges with material if Wilkins had fallen short. It's not the fact that there are so many counters that strikes me (I rather like that), as that they too are replete with overlaps and ambiguities. When does a small animal (counted with h/b/piki) become big enough to be counted with to? Machines are counted with dai - except when they are able to fly. Books, magazines and comics get one counter, but newspapers another. A page has one counter when it's in a book, but another when it's torn out. And so on. And, most charmingly, rabbits are counted with wa, like birds* - supposedly so that Buddhist monks would be able to eat them without breaking their vow to abstain from animal meat. I remember that European Christian monks had a similar trick, counting some animal or other as a fish so that they'd be able to eat it on Fridays and during Lent. (But what was that animal? I can't for the life of me remember. An otter is the obvious candidate, but I can't imagine that makes very good eating. Give me a nice brown trout any day.)

* Either because a) their ears look like wings, b) they stand on two legs a lot of the time, or c) the word usagi is made up of u (cormorant) and sagi (snowy heron).

Not European -- South American. Until Vatican II the capybara was considered aquatic enough to count as a fish for Friday purposes.

Counters are, indeed, interestingly categorizations -- and you can play with the categories in fun ways. Ippika no hito n'desu yo is a way of saying "It's that I'm (just) one person" without actually including the "just" by using the small animal counter for oneself.

(I still routinely mess up my counters -- not just forgetting / misusing them, but the sound changes when combined with numbers. I also routinely mess up sound changes for large (>10) numbers.)

---L.

Ippika no hito n'desu yo is a way of saying "It's that I'm (just) one person" without actually including the "just" by using the small animal counter for oneself.

That's very cute.

(But what was that animal? I can't for the life of me remember. An otter is the obvious candidate, but I can't imagine that makes very good eating. Give me a nice brown trout any day.)

Beaver and capybara are both Friday-and-Lent-edible. I do not know why I know this, except that I also know locusts are kosher.

Only two varieties of locusts are kosher.

Only two varieties of locusts are kosher.

I thought there were four kinds of kosher locust described in the Torah, most of the argument since being about which species this actually translates to in scientific terms. Is that what you mean by varieties?

I suspect that the people I use for my number determined that there were two being referred to. This is where I shamefully admit that my references on it are out of reach and that I looked at it 25 years ago and so my memory may well be flawed and the research I used dated. I should stop telling people there are two varieties..

What I really want to know is if any of those are the ones found in plague portions in Australia. That was why I was looking into it initially. We had a plague and I wondered about its edibility and my very frum sister needed to know the variety of locust.

One of the advantages of being a gentile - all the locusts you can eat!

Beaver too? Hadn't heard that. Coo.

---L.

Ah - I may have been thinking of beavers.

I don't know of any animals being regarded technically as fish in the Middle Ages, but the barnacle goose was carefully defined as such. Because quite obviously it hatched from the barnacles on the side of ships and was thus a sea creature, even when it hatched from eggs you yourself had met.

Why wouldn't anyone believe that? After all, they had the pictures to prove it.

Edited at 2013-11-19 08:02 am (UTC)

Puffins count as fish, I believe -- and taste like it, too.

Puffins, yes. And beavers' tails.

I love this conversation.

Nine

And beavers' tails.

You mean, only the tail is a fish, and the rest of the beaver is a mammal? What kind of Dr Moreau character did they take God to be?

(Deleted comment)
My spies are everywhere...

?

Log in

No account? Create an account