And it is. or was. In fact, it kinda is again, as “fish” is no longer a class.
Class Agnatha (jawless fishes)
Class Chondrichthyes (cartilaginous fishes)
Class Osteichthyes (bony fishes)
But before Linnaeus , “fish” meant “things that live in the water” such as “blackfish
,. “jellyfish” 'starfish” and etc.
And Cladistically included but traditionally excluded taxa= Tetrapods, which of course includes whales, and us. So, we are a “fish”, in a way. Sorta.
Per wiki “Taxonomy
Fish are a paraphyletic group: that is, any clade containing all fish also contains the tetrapods, which are not fish. For this reason, groups such as the “Class Pisces” seen in older reference works are no longer used in formal classifications.”
T*etrapod, (superclass Tetrapoda), a superclass of animals that includes all limbed vertebrates (backboned animals) constituting the classes Amphibia (amphibians), Reptilia (reptiles), Aves (birds), Mammalia (mammals), and their direct ancestors that emerged roughly 397 million years ago during the Devonian Period. In a strict evolutionary sense, all tetrapods are essentially “limbed fish,” because their ultimate vertebrate ancestor is a fish. All tetrapods share a variety of morphological features. *
There’s story a going around about Naomi Wolf’s new book about homosexuals being executed in 19th century England which didn’t actually happen. Apparently she misunderstood the phrase “death recorded” as being executed when it really meant the judges were abstaining on a verdict until the defendant could be considered for a pardon. She only learned about this during an interview with BBC radio while doing an promotional interview for the book.
Leaving aside your truly bizarre ideas about responsibility for the Culloden visitor centre, Quartz , I’m also going to call BS on your claims about its contents (which is getting back to the theme of this thread).
I haven’t been to Culloden since the new visitor centre opened, but I don’t believe for a minute your claim that it describes the victor of the battle as being ‘England’.
I read that they sought to de-romanticise the Jacobites and the battle, so what do you mean by ‘one-sided’? Are you unhappy that the centre describes possible atrocities committed by the British Army after the battle? Is that something you’d rather sweep under the carpet?
It is a bit unfair to accuse Cussler of being factually incorrect, when this story was written before the Titantic’s wreckage was found and so he couldn’t have known for sure that it would be broken in half.
It was, actually. As has been pointed out, “fish” was originally just a generic term for anything that lived in the water. Deciding that whales (and seals and sea turtles and manatees) were not fish was something that was done after more modern systems of classification were formulated. In fact, some dictionaries retain this definition, like Merriam Webster:
And some whales like pilot whales are still called blackfish.
I remember a historical novel I read long ago where the heroine and her lover are sitting outside on a summer evening in France as it grows dark and the stars come out. The heroine can see the stars of Orion shining in the sky above her lover’s head.
Never mind that Orion is a winter constellation in the northern hemisphere and can’t be seen in the short summer nights.
After thinking it over, would the most correct translation in terms of preserving the meaning actually be something more like “Holepuncher”? That is, if I understand correctly, what it’s trying to communicate.
You might say this is ridiculous, but my point is that translation is contextual. Saying that Panzerfaust means Bazooka is perfectly accurate if you are trying to convey that they are the same thing. If someone does not precisely understand what Panzerfaust means, then pretending that it means “Shell Fist” communicates precisely Jack and Scheisse. I believe Kershaw’s translation is perfectly fine in context.
Dewey Lambdin had a whole series about a Napoleonic era British naval officer which was pretty good but every paperback edition contained an afterword chapter where readers sent in corrections on the sailing parts because he admitted he didn’t know anything about the technical aspects of late 18th early 19th-century sailing or even sailing its self,