Cecil states, with regard to a gender-neutral term for cattle:
“You got your cows (girl bovine mammals), you got your bulls (boy bovine mammals), you got your cattle (plural you-know-whats), but no generic singular term like “horse” or “sheep.””
Actually, “horse” is not gender-neutral at all, but rather refers specifically to an uncastrated male equine. Anyone who’s read a racing program will be aware of this, as “h”, for horse (of course!), denotes an intact male entrant. So where does that leave us for a gender neutral term for large animals that go “neigh”?
From MW: Horse-1 a (1): a large solid-hoofed herbivorous ungulate mammal (Equus caballus, family Equidae, the horse family) domesticated since prehistoric times and used as a beast of burden, a draft animal, or for riding.
Looks gender neutral to me. Besides, even in racing they refer to a “horse race” even when all the animals running in a given race may in fact be female.
Well I don’t know. I’ve made the distinction between a “horse colt” and a “filly.” But usually, I would say mostly, when I’ve gone out to ride my horse, I’ve said I was going out to ride my horse, and FWIW the horses I’ve gone out to ride have been overwhelmingly female. But I never would have said “I’m going out to ride my mare” or “Hey, I’m off to go feed the mare, now.”
If we’re gonna rant about misuse of words, let’s do “podium,” okay? It’s the raised platform the band director stands on. Not the thing the speaker stands behind. (Although it’s getting there, what with everybody misusing the word.) The term for the thing the speaker stands behind, with the light and the little book holder, is a lectern.
I always thought the difference was that a podium has a microphone attached while a lectern doesn’t…
Getting back to the horse vs. mare bit, it’s more an amusing bit of trivia to me than a pet peave about incorrect usage. The fact is, “horse” is in common usage as a gender neutral term for an equine in an even more culturally-ingrained way than the common usage of “cow” to refer to cattle of either sex. And yes, if I were going out to ride my horse, I’d likely say it just like that, unless I owned both a mare and a stallion and wanted to be clear I was going out to ride the mare. Actually, I’d more likely call her by name!
Well then complaining about it now is a bit like closing the barn door after the horse gets out isn’t? Lots of words have meaning different from their “original” meaning. And you use the phrase “incorrect usage” like a prescriptivist. Is it time for the prescriptivist /descriptivist shouting match in the Pit?
Okay, if you need help paying the membership fee I’ll help you. Snotty over-intellectualizing at the expense of current usage is a terrible thing to waste and is the sign of a worthy new member. I try to support my peeps.
(FTR, I’m banking on equidae’s membership in the Horsey Set to mean I don’t actually have to pay off but he/she should email me if needed because the offer stands.)
H for horse denotes an intact male entrant aged 5 years and older. At 4 years and under it’s c for colt. Similarly a female entrant is f for filly until it reaches the age of 5 when it becomes m for mare.
So “horse” is like “ship” then? We live and learn.
(A “ship” has three masts, all square-rigged. However, don’t be surprised if footage of a “tall ships” race shows you barques, barquentines, brigs, brigantines and schooners as well.)
First Monday Webster’s says that mares are female horses. (Of course it’s a horse…) Do you really want to make the guy who originated the racing form the authority on this subject? Unless there is cross-breeding going on, a horse gives birth to a horse, right?
Now…about that woman who was the “Men’s Grand Master Chess Champion” several years ago…That one was a double whammy.
Isn’t this just a case of different usage in different fields? It’s not all that surprising that words have precise meanings when used by people in direct connection with their business (in this case, horse racing), and also have very common different, or broader meanings outside of that field.
I expect ‘Dog’ is the same. Don’t dog-show people not use that term only to refer to a male?
Yes, when it’s not a rostrum. Of course, a rostrum is *actually * this (a bow on a ship). Of course, that’s called a rostrum only because it looks like a bit like an actual rostrum, which is this.
Then again, since an orchestra is actually this , and a scene is this , then what the heck.
I ran a case a few years back in which it would have saved my client about half a million dollars if we could have viably argued that a ship was as you say and therefore legislation which used that word didn’t cover our opponent’s modern vessel. I raised this point a few times with my partners and counsel (admittedly with a smile on my face) and they just laughed. This served to confirm what I’d basically already decided: not an argument even worth raising. Actually we did raise it in court, but only as a joke. And we got a chuckle out of 'is Honour, an all.
Here’s what the Oxford English Dictionary has to say
Their first citation for neuter definition of horse (as opposed to mule) is from AD 825. The first for the male definition (as opposed to mare) is from 1485. The neuter definition has never really fallen out of favor but rather exists side-by-side with the male definition.
I am not using “incorrect” usage in a prescriptivist sense. You will, I presume, concede that if I were to use the word “horse” and point to a member of an ovine species, that I would be using the word “incorrectly?” After all, a language is a language only when there is enough commonality of meaning in usage to allow for communication.
Thus, initially the idea of a lectern and a podium as having separate meanings wasn’t prescriptivist, it simply acknowledged that each was a different item, and each had its own name (otherwise, they would both be called the same thing, and the need for two words would not exist). Over time, people began to mis-apply the one word for the other thing, based upon a mistaken understanding as to what the meaning of the word in question was. Do that often enough, and the word acquires a new meaning: this is hardly a prescriptivist point of view, because the prescriptivists would be stamping their feet and loudly declaring the new meaning wasn’t “right.”
So “horse” was gender neutral before English even existed, and male-only quite some time after. Looks like even the arch-prescriptivists can still feel safe calling a horse a horse (of course).
Exactly.
An even more interesting example (to me) is in the ostrich business. Eight or ten years ago when the Pennsylvania ostrich boom happened (lasting about a year;)) there was all sorts of confusion with regard to terminology.
Male birds are, in general, called “cocks”. Ostrich were being farmed largely by “gentlemen farmers” with money to invest but little farming background. Embarrassed by talk of their cocks (“I’ve got a huge cock for sale”) these folks borrowed the term “rooster” from the chicken crowd. Almost overnight, rooster became the accepted term for a male ostrich in my area.
Yep. And the OP’s observation is AFAIK restricted to the racing set.
