Dolphin

[Steve Hayes]

I recently read "The old man and the sea" by Ernest Hemingway, first published
in 1952.

One thing that stuck out like a sore thumb was his description of a fisherman
gutting a dolphin and throwing the entrails and gills into the sea.

I thought everyone knew that dolphins are mammals and don't have gills, they
have lungs. Certainly Hemingway, who had a reputation as a great fisherman,
ought to have known that. The edition I read was a school edition, and had
notes to explain various things, but there was no explanation of that at all.

Then someone pointed out that the meaning of "dolphin" was different in AmE,
and applied to a different marine animal that was a fish and did have gills.

But I recalled reading a book, "The day of the dolphin", first published in
1967, that is set in Florida in the USA, which overlooks the same sea that
Hemingway wrote about, and the dolphins in the book are definitely the marine
mammals that I assumed that everyone (except perhaps Hemingway) was familiar
with.

Ok, "The day of the dolphin" was written by a Frenchamn, and the original
title was "Un animal doué de raison", but it was marketed in English-speaking
countries with the title mentioning dolphins and everyone seemed to know what
it meant.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/94499.The_Day_of_the_Dolphin?ac=1

So it seems that, if Hemingway wasn't ignorant, the meaning of "dolphin"
changed completely in 15 short years, between 1952 and 1967.

I know that for many people the meaning of the word "man" has changed over the
last 40 years from "a member of the species homo sapiens sapiens" to a more
restricted version, applying only to an adult male of that species,

But that was 40 years, not 15 years, and it is at least the same species.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 06:59:13 +0200, Steve Hayes

Post by Steve Hayes
I recently read "The old man and the sea" by Ernest Hemingway, first published
in 1952.
One thing that stuck out like a sore thumb was his description of a fisherman
gutting a dolphin and throwing the entrails and gills into the sea.
I thought everyone knew that dolphins are mammals and don't have gills, they
have lungs. Certainly Hemingway, who had a reputation as a great fisherman,
ought to have known that. The edition I read was a school edition, and had
notes to explain various things, but there was no explanation of that at all.
Then someone pointed out that the meaning of "dolphin" was different in AmE,
and applied to a different marine animal that was a fish and did have gills.
But I recalled reading a book, "The day of the dolphin", first published in
1967, that is set in Florida in the USA, which overlooks the same sea that
Hemingway wrote about, and the dolphins in the book are definitely the marine
mammals that I assumed that everyone (except perhaps Hemingway) was familiar
with.
Ok, "The day of the dolphin" was written by a Frenchamn, and the original
title was "Un animal doué de raison", but it was marketed in English-speaking
countries with the title mentioning dolphins and everyone seemed to know what
it meant.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/94499.The_Day_of_the_Dolphin?ac=1
So it seems that, if Hemingway wasn't ignorant, the meaning of "dolphin"
changed completely in 15 short years, between 1952 and 1967.

The dolphin (fish) is considered to be a game fish by sports
fishermen. In restuarants, it usually is listed as Mahi-Mahi because
people might be reluctant to order Flipper.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahi-mahi

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 06:59:13 +0200, Steve Hayes

Post by Steve Hayes
I recently read "The old man and the sea" by Ernest Hemingway, first published
in 1952.
One thing that stuck out like a sore thumb was his description of a fisherman
gutting a dolphin and throwing the entrails and gills into the sea.
I thought everyone knew that dolphins are mammals and don't have gills, they
have lungs. Certainly Hemingway, who had a reputation as a great fisherman,
ought to have known that. The edition I read was a school edition, and had
notes to explain various things, but there was no explanation of that at all.
Then someone pointed out that the meaning of "dolphin" was different in AmE,
and applied to a different marine animal that was a fish and did have gills.
But I recalled reading a book, "The day of the dolphin", first published in
1967, that is set in Florida in the USA, which overlooks the same sea that
Hemingway wrote about, and the dolphins in the book are definitely the marine
mammals that I assumed that everyone (except perhaps Hemingway) was familiar
with.
Ok, "The day of the dolphin" was written by a Frenchamn, and the original
title was "Un animal doué de raison", but it was marketed in English-speaking
countries with the title mentioning dolphins and everyone seemed to know what
it meant.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/94499.The_Day_of_the_Dolphin?ac=1
So it seems that, if Hemingway wasn't ignorant, the meaning of "dolphin"
changed completely in 15 short years, between 1952 and 1967.

The dolphin (fish) is considered to be a game fish by sports
fishermen. In restuarants, it usually is listed as Mahi-Mahi because
people might be reluctant to order Flipper.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahi-mahi

So Hemingway was probably referring to this:

http://www.ilovefishing.co.za/saltwater-species/dorado

but how did the name change so quickly?

[Don Phillipson]

Post by Steve Hayes
http://www.ilovefishing.co.za/saltwater-species/dorado
but how did the name change so quickly?

1. For clarity, to specify whether we mean the smallest
class of whales (mammals) or the gilled fish, both
previously called dolphin in English, cf. increasing concern
in the late 20th century for the survival of all whales.

2. Because dorado was already current in Spanish
as the vernacular name of this fish.
2b. After 1960, an increasing number of U.S. saltwater
anglers fished in Latin-American waters with Spanish-
speaking guides and boatmen.

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Don Phillipson

Post by Steve Hayes
http://www.ilovefishing.co.za/saltwater-species/dorado
but how did the name change so quickly?

1. For clarity, to specify whether we mean the smallest
class of whales (mammals) or the gilled fish, both
previously called dolphin in English,

Specifically, the OED cites "dolphin" for the cetacean to the 13th
century and for the fish ("Fish hookes, for..Dolphins, or Dorados") to 1626.

It also quotes Byron, from /Childe Harold's Pilgrimage/:

"Parting day
Dies like the dolphin, whom each pang imbues
With a new lustre, as it gasps away,
The last still loveliest, till--’tis gone--and all is grey."

This obviously refers to the fish, not the mammal.

Post by Don Phillipson
cf. increasing concern
in the late 20th century for the survival of all whales.

And an increasing feeling that they were too intelligent to eat.

Post by Don Phillipson
2. Because dorado was already current in Spanish
as the vernacular name of this fish.
2b. After 1960, an increasing number of U.S. saltwater
anglers fished in Latin-American waters with Spanish-
speaking guides and boatmen.

However, in most or all of the U.S., the usual name is now "mahi-mahi",
as people have said. In South Africa, though, it appears to be called
the dorado.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Don Phillipson
1. For clarity, to specify whether we mean the smallest
class of whales (mammals) or the gilled fish, both
previously called dolphin in English,

Specifically, the OED cites "dolphin" for the cetacean to the 13th
century and for the fish ("Fish hookes, for..Dolphins, or Dorados") to 1626.
"Parting day
Dies like the dolphin, whom each pang imbues
With a new lustre, as it gasps away,
The last still loveliest, till--�tis gone--and all is grey."
This obviously refers to the fish, not the mammal.

How is it obvious? Fish don't have lungs, so they can't "gasp."

[Tony Cooper]

On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 10:39:58 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Don Phillipson
1. For clarity, to specify whether we mean the smallest
class of whales (mammals) or the gilled fish, both
previously called dolphin in English,

Specifically, the OED cites "dolphin" for the cetacean to the 13th
century and for the fish ("Fish hookes, for..Dolphins, or Dorados") to 1626.
"Parting day
Dies like the dolphin, whom each pang imbues
With a new lustre, as it gasps away,
The last still loveliest, till--�tis gone--and all is grey."
This obviously refers to the fish, not the mammal.

How is it obvious? Fish don't have lungs, so they can't "gasp."

If you think that, then you have never seen a boated game fish. While
they may not "gasp" as you might after a run, what they do is very
similar.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 10:39:58 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Don Phillipson
1. For clarity, to specify whether we mean the smallest
class of whales (mammals) or the gilled fish, both
previously called dolphin in English,

Specifically, the OED cites "dolphin" for the cetacean to the 13th
century and for the fish ("Fish hookes, for..Dolphins, or Dorados") to 1626.
"Parting day
Dies like the dolphin, whom each pang imbues
With a new lustre, as it gasps away,
The last still loveliest, till--�tis gone--and all is grey."
This obviously refers to the fish, not the mammal.

How is it obvious? Fish don't have lungs, so they can't "gasp."

If you think that, then you have never seen a boated game fish. While

Not something I would ever want to see.

Post by Tony Cooper
they may not "gasp" as you might after a run, what they do is very
similar.

For some jennish definition of "similar."

[Tony Cooper]

On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 13:10:36 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 10:39:58 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Don Phillipson
1. For clarity, to specify whether we mean the smallest
class of whales (mammals) or the gilled fish, both
previously called dolphin in English,

Specifically, the OED cites "dolphin" for the cetacean to the 13th
century and for the fish ("Fish hookes, for..Dolphins, or Dorados") to 1626.
"Parting day
Dies like the dolphin, whom each pang imbues
With a new lustre, as it gasps away,
The last still loveliest, till--�tis gone--and all is grey."
This obviously refers to the fish, not the mammal.

How is it obvious? Fish don't have lungs, so they can't "gasp."

If you think that, then you have never seen a boated game fish. While

Not something I would ever want to see.

Post by Tony Cooper
they may not "gasp" as you might after a run, what they do is very
similar.

For some jennish definition of "similar."

If you haven't seen it, then how do you know it isn't similar?

[Mike L]

On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 17:10:48 -0500, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 13:10:36 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 10:39:58 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Don Phillipson
1. For clarity, to specify whether we mean the smallest
class of whales (mammals) or the gilled fish, both
previously called dolphin in English,

Specifically, the OED cites "dolphin" for the cetacean to the 13th
century and for the fish ("Fish hookes, for..Dolphins, or Dorados") to 1626.
"Parting day
Dies like the dolphin, whom each pang imbues
With a new lustre, as it gasps away,
The last still loveliest, till--�tis gone--and all is grey."
This obviously refers to the fish, not the mammal.

How is it obvious? Fish don't have lungs, so they can't "gasp."

If you think that, then you have never seen a boated game fish. While

Not something I would ever want to see.

Post by Tony Cooper
they may not "gasp" as you might after a run, what they do is very
similar.

For some jennish definition of "similar."

If you haven't seen it, then how do you know it isn't similar?

They do open their mouths and pump air through: that's as near gasping
as the anatomical differences will allow.

[Mike L]

On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 14:16:13 -0500, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 10:39:58 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Don Phillipson
1. For clarity, to specify whether we mean the smallest
class of whales (mammals) or the gilled fish, both
previously called dolphin in English,

Specifically, the OED cites "dolphin" for the cetacean to the 13th
century and for the fish ("Fish hookes, for..Dolphins, or Dorados") to 1626.
"Parting day
Dies like the dolphin, whom each pang imbues
With a new lustre, as it gasps away,
The last still loveliest, till--�tis gone--and all is grey."
This obviously refers to the fish, not the mammal.

How is it obvious? Fish don't have lungs, so they can't "gasp."

If you think that, then you have never seen a boated game fish. While
they may not "gasp" as you might after a run, what they do is very
similar.

Quite right: it can be distressing. But even without that, Byron's
meaning is quite certain, as the fish has long been famous for
changing colours as it dies: at a lavish Roman nosh-up, it would be
killed at the table so that everybody could enjoy the display.

[Peter Percival]

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 06:59:13 +0200, Steve Hayes

Post by Steve Hayes
I recently read "The old man and the sea" by Ernest Hemingway, first published
in 1952.
One thing that stuck out like a sore thumb was his description of a fisherman
gutting a dolphin and throwing the entrails and gills into the sea.
I thought everyone knew that dolphins are mammals and don't have gills, they
have lungs. Certainly Hemingway, who had a reputation as a great fisherman,
ought to have known that. The edition I read was a school edition, and had
notes to explain various things, but there was no explanation of that at all.
Then someone pointed out that the meaning of "dolphin" was different in AmE,
and applied to a different marine animal that was a fish and did have gills.
But I recalled reading a book, "The day of the dolphin", first published in
1967, that is set in Florida in the USA, which overlooks the same sea that
Hemingway wrote about, and the dolphins in the book are definitely the marine
mammals that I assumed that everyone (except perhaps Hemingway) was familiar
with.
Ok, "The day of the dolphin" was written by a Frenchamn, and the original
title was "Un animal doué de raison", but it was marketed in English-speaking
countries with the title mentioning dolphins and everyone seemed to know what
it meant.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/94499.The_Day_of_the_Dolphin?ac=1
So it seems that, if Hemingway wasn't ignorant, the meaning of "dolphin"
changed completely in 15 short years, between 1952 and 1967.

The dolphin (fish) is considered to be a game fish by sports
fishermen. In restuarants, it usually is listed as Mahi-Mahi because
people might be reluctant to order Flipper.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahi-mahi

http://www.ilovefishing.co.za/saltwater-species/dorado
but how did the name change so quickly?

I'm not sure it did. The New Shorter has "dolphinfish" (note one word).
_That_ gets shortened to "dolphin".

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 06:59:13 +0200, Steve Hayes

Post by Steve Hayes
I recently read "The old man and the sea" by Ernest Hemingway, first published
in 1952.
One thing that stuck out like a sore thumb was his description of a fisherman
gutting a dolphin and throwing the entrails and gills into the sea.

...

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Steve Hayes
So it seems that, if Hemingway wasn't ignorant, the meaning of "dolphin"
changed completely in 15 short years, between 1952 and 1967.

The dolphin (fish) is considered to be a game fish by sports
fishermen. In restuarants, it usually is listed as Mahi-Mahi because
people might be reluctant to order Flipper.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahi-mahi

Though one time that my mother ordered mahi-mahi in a restaurant, a
confused relative of hers upbraided her for "eating Flipper".

[a***@alum.wpi.edi]

On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 06:59:13 +0200, Steve Hayes

Post by Steve Hayes
I recently read "The old man and the sea" by Ernest Hemingway, first published
in 1952.
One thing that stuck out like a sore thumb was his description of a fisherman
gutting a dolphin and throwing the entrails and gills into the sea.
I thought everyone knew that dolphins are mammals and don't have gills, they
have lungs. Certainly Hemingway, who had a reputation as a great fisherman,
ought to have known that. The edition I read was a school edition, and had
notes to explain various things, but there was no explanation of that at all.
Then someone pointed out that the meaning of "dolphin" was different in AmE,

Umm, no. "Dolphin-the-fish" shows up in English before there was an
America to blame it on. Heraldry is your first clue, from quite early
on, heraldic dolphins where a rather mixed lot, outside what simple
ignorance would allow.

In 1766 Grainger, in "The Sugar-cane," refers to the fish's fragile
beauty -which applies to pompanos, but not etymologically proper
dolphins.

Post by Steve Hayes
and applied to a different marine animal that was a fish and did have gills.
But I recalled reading a book, "The day of the dolphin", first published in
1967, that is set in Florida in the USA, which overlooks the same sea that
Hemingway wrote about, and the dolphins in the book are definitely the marine
mammals that I assumed that everyone (except perhaps Hemingway) was familiar
with.

Actual sailors, firsherman, fish-eaters and naturalists tend to be
familiar with both, and what is now generally marketed as "mahi-mahi"
was sold as "dolphin" in the '70s.

Post by Steve Hayes
Ok, "The day of the dolphin" was written by a Frenchamn, and the original
title was "Un animal doué de raison", but it was marketed in English-speaking
countries with the title mentioning dolphins and everyone seemed to know what
it meant.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/94499.The_Day_of_the_Dolphin?ac=1
So it seems that, if Hemingway wasn't ignorant, the meaning of "dolphin"
changed completely in 15 short years, between 1952 and 1967.

No. Whoever informed you that Americans used "dolphin" solely for the
fish misinformed you; the default meaning, ouside of decorative
carving and pilings, has always been the sea-pig.

ANMcC

[Stan Brown]

Post by a***@alum.wpi.edi
No. Whoever informed you that Americans used "dolphin" solely for the
fish misinformed you; the default meaning, ouside of decorative
carving and pilings, has always been the sea-pig.

"Sea pig"???? I've never heard them called that before.

But I agree with you that plain "dolphin" in AmE means the mammal
(related to the whales)/ If talking about the fish, the speaker
needs to add qualifiers.

Post by a***@alum.wpi.edi
"Dolphin-the-fish" shows up in English before there was an America
to blame it on. Heraldry is your first clue, from quite early on,
heraldic dolphins where a rather mixed lot, outside what simple
ignorance would allow.

Now I'm confused about Old World depictions of dolphins, however.
When I looked at the shield of the Dauphin, I thought I was seeing
the mammal, not the fish. It sure looks like Flipper here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dauphin_of_France

Or were you saying that some heraldic depictions were the fish and
some were the mammal?

[Tak To]

Post by Stan Brown

Post by a***@alum.wpi.edi
No. Whoever informed you that Americans used "dolphin" solely for the
fish misinformed you; the default meaning, ouside of decorative
carving and pilings, has always been the sea-pig.

"Sea pig"???? I've never heard them called that before.

Perhaps he was referring to the Chinese name 海豚
<hai3 tun2>, of which "sea pig" is a claque.

Tak
--
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Tak To
Perhaps he was referring to the Chinese name 海豚
<hai3 tun2>, of which "sea pig" is a claque.

Ok, so sea pigs are big fans of haitun; but what's the translation
of haitun?

[Tak To]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tak To
Perhaps he was referring to the Chinese name 海豚
<hai3 tun2>, of which "sea pig" is a claque.

Ok, so sea pigs are big fans of haitun; but what's the translation
of haitun?

Fooled by the spelling checker again!

Tak
--
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr

[R H Draney]

Post by Stan Brown

Post by a***@alum.wpi.edi
No. Whoever informed you that Americans used "dolphin" solely for the
fish misinformed you; the default meaning, ouside of decorative
carving and pilings, has always been the sea-pig.

"Sea pig"???? I've never heard them called that before.

Perhaps he was referring to the Chinese name 海豚
<hai3 tun2>, of which "sea pig" is a claque.

The alternative term "porpoise" is supposed to derive from ML "porcus" +
"piscis", i.e. "pig-fish"....r

[a***@alum.wpi.edi]

On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 08:07:08 -0500, Stan Brown

Post by Stan Brown

Post by a***@alum.wpi.edi
No. Whoever informed you that Americans used "dolphin" solely for the
fish misinformed you; the default meaning, ouside of decorative
carving and pilings, has always been the sea-pig.

"Sea pig"???? I've never heard them called that before.

Damned Sassanachs. There're everywhere.

In addition to the Gael's "muc mara," we have "mere swijns" of various
spellings in Germanic languages. The biggy, though, is Flipper his
own self; "porpoise" is, etymologically, "pig fish" with a litttle
influence from "pork fish."

Post by Stan Brown
But I agree with you that plain "dolphin" in AmE means the mammal
(related to the whales)/ If talking about the fish, the speaker
needs to add qualifiers.

Post by a***@alum.wpi.edi
"Dolphin-the-fish" shows up in English before there was an America
to blame it on. Heraldry is your first clue, from quite early on,
heraldic dolphins where a rather mixed lot, outside what simple
ignorance would allow.

Now I'm confused about Old World depictions of dolphins, however.
When I looked at the shield of the Dauphin, I thought I was seeing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dauphin_of_France

Well, sorta. Note it has fish-fins, not proper flippers. If you look
at many naval and nautical dolphins, the only mammalian relic is the
shape of the head, or, oddly, a tusk.

Post by Stan Brown
Or were you saying that some heraldic depictions were the fish and
some were the mammal?

Some were mostly mammal, some were mostly fish; most are morphodite
monstrosicities (sic).

ANMcC

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 06:59:13 +0200, Steve Hayes

Post by Steve Hayes
I recently read "The old man and the sea" by Ernest Hemingway, first published
in 1952.
One thing that stuck out like a sore thumb was his description of a fisherman
gutting a dolphin and throwing the entrails and gills into the sea.
I thought everyone knew that dolphins are mammals and don't have gills, they
have lungs. Certainly Hemingway, who had a reputation as a great fisherman,
ought to have known that. The edition I read was a school edition, and had
notes to explain various things, but there was no explanation of that at all.
Then someone pointed out that the meaning of "dolphin" was different in AmE,

Umm, no. "Dolphin-the-fish" shows up in English before there was an
America to blame it on. Heraldry is your first clue, from quite early
on, heraldic dolphins where a rather mixed lot, outside what simple
ignorance would allow.
In 1766 Grainger, in "The Sugar-cane," refers to the fish's fragile
beauty -which applies to pompanos, but not etymologically proper
dolphins.

...

Etymologically proper pompanos are members of a different family from
dolphinfish/dorados/mahi-mahi. However, the smaller of the two species
of dolphinfish is called the pompano dolphinfish, for instance at
Wikipedia and <http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/170350/0>.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Steve Hayes
I recently read "The old man and the sea" by Ernest Hemingway, first published
in 1952.
One thing that stuck out like a sore thumb was his description of a fisherman
gutting a dolphin and throwing the entrails and gills into the sea.
I thought everyone knew that dolphins are mammals and don't have gills, they
have lungs. Certainly Hemingway, who had a reputation as a great fisherman,
ought to have known that. The edition I read was a school edition, and had
notes to explain various things, but there was no explanation of that at all.
Then someone pointed out that the meaning of "dolphin" was different in AmE,
and applied to a different marine animal that was a fish and did have gills.

Any evidence that this "someone" knew anything at all about either marine
fauna or AmE?

Post by Steve Hayes
But I recalled reading a book, "The day of the dolphin", first published in
1967, that is set in Florida in the USA, which overlooks the same sea that
Hemingway wrote about, and the dolphins in the book are definitely the marine
mammals that I assumed that everyone (except perhaps Hemingway) was familiar
with.
Ok, "The day of the dolphin" was written by a Frenchamn, and the original
title was "Un animal doué de raison", but it was marketed in English-speaking
countries with the title mentioning dolphins and everyone seemed to know what
it meant.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/94499.The_Day_of_the_Dolphin?ac=1
So it seems that, if Hemingway wasn't ignorant, the meaning of "dolphin"
changed completely in 15 short years, between 1952 and 1967.

If you pointed this out to Hemingway, after he punched you out he'd reply,
"Sheer ignorance, madam."

Post by Steve Hayes
I know that for many people the meaning of the word "man" has changed over the
last 40 years from "a member of the species homo sapiens sapiens" to a more
restricted version, applying only to an adult male of that species,

That is simply not an accurate characterization of the phenomenon.

Post by Steve Hayes
But that was 40 years, not 15 years, and it is at least the same species.

[Steve Hayes]

On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 06:00:32 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Steve Hayes
I recently read "The old man and the sea" by Ernest Hemingway, first published
in 1952.
One thing that stuck out like a sore thumb was his description of a fisherman
gutting a dolphin and throwing the entrails and gills into the sea.
I thought everyone knew that dolphins are mammals and don't have gills, they
have lungs. Certainly Hemingway, who had a reputation as a great fisherman,
ought to have known that. The edition I read was a school edition, and had
notes to explain various things, but there was no explanation of that at all.
Then someone pointed out that the meaning of "dolphin" was different in AmE,
and applied to a different marine animal that was a fish and did have gills.

Any evidence that this "someone" knew anything at all about either marine
fauna or AmE?

Well he was citing Wikpedia, so it wasn't his knowledge that would be in
question.

'May I refer you to this Wikipedia snippet on "dolphin": "This term has often
been misused in the US, mainly in the fishing industry, where all small
cetaceans (dolphins and porpoises) are considered porpoises, while the fish
dorado is called dolphin fish."'

And that's why I thought I should check it with the collective wisdom of aue.

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Steve Hayes
But I recalled reading a book, "The day of the dolphin", first published in
1967, that is set in Florida in the USA, which overlooks the same sea that
Hemingway wrote about, and the dolphins in the book are definitely the marine
mammals that I assumed that everyone (except perhaps Hemingway) was familiar
with.
Ok, "The day of the dolphin" was written by a Frenchamn, and the original
title was "Un animal doué de raison", but it was marketed in English-speaking
countries with the title mentioning dolphins and everyone seemed to know what
it meant.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/94499.The_Day_of_the_Dolphin?ac=1
So it seems that, if Hemingway wasn't ignorant, the meaning of "dolphin"
changed completely in 15 short years, between 1952 and 1967.

If you pointed this out to Hemingway, after he punched you out he'd reply,
"Sheer ignorance, madam."

On whose part?

[a***@alum.wpi.edi]

On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 02:34:48 +0200, Steve Hayes

Post by Steve Hayes
On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 06:00:32 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Steve Hayes
I recently read "The old man and the sea" by Ernest Hemingway, first published
in 1952.
One thing that stuck out like a sore thumb was his description of a fisherman
gutting a dolphin and throwing the entrails and gills into the sea.
I thought everyone knew that dolphins are mammals and don't have gills, they
have lungs. Certainly Hemingway, who had a reputation as a great fisherman,
ought to have known that. The edition I read was a school edition, and had
notes to explain various things, but there was no explanation of that at all.
Then someone pointed out that the meaning of "dolphin" was different in AmE,
and applied to a different marine animal that was a fish and did have gills.

Any evidence that this "someone" knew anything at all about either marine
fauna or AmE?

Well he was citing Wikpedia, so it wasn't his knowledge that would be in
question.
'May I refer you to this Wikipedia snippet on "dolphin": "This term has often
been misused in the US, mainly in the fishing industry, where all small
cetaceans (dolphins and porpoises) are considered porpoises, while the fish
dorado is called dolphin fish."'

Given that this is supported by a footnote that contradicts his
central points, I suppose you should treat it as the spewings of the
cumin or Gordon variety wikikrank.

"What are porpoises and how are they different from dolphins? In the
past, and still in some places, the common names 'porpoise' and
'dolphin' have been used interchangeably. In many parts of the United
States, for example, fishermen refer to dolphins as porpoises, to
distinguish the mammals from the dolphin fish, also known as the
mahi-mahi or dorado."

Note that it points out the original complete overlap, notes that it
is not universal in the US, and is, in this particular usage, an
example of trade jargon. This doesn't at all support the idea that
this is common in the US, nor that it is restricted to it, or that it
is misuse.

ANMcC

[Steve Hayes]

Post by a***@alum.wpi.edi
On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 02:34:48 +0200, Steve Hayes

Post by Steve Hayes
On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 06:00:32 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Steve Hayes
I recently read "The old man and the sea" by Ernest Hemingway, first published
in 1952.
One thing that stuck out like a sore thumb was his description of a fisherman
gutting a dolphin and throwing the entrails and gills into the sea.
I thought everyone knew that dolphins are mammals and don't have gills, they
have lungs. Certainly Hemingway, who had a reputation as a great fisherman,
ought to have known that. The edition I read was a school edition, and had
notes to explain various things, but there was no explanation of that at all.
Then someone pointed out that the meaning of "dolphin" was different in AmE,
and applied to a different marine animal that was a fish and did have gills.

Any evidence that this "someone" knew anything at all about either marine
fauna or AmE?

Well he was citing Wikpedia, so it wasn't his knowledge that would be in
question.
'May I refer you to this Wikipedia snippet on "dolphin": "This term has often
been misused in the US, mainly in the fishing industry, where all small
cetaceans (dolphins and porpoises) are considered porpoises, while the fish
dorado is called dolphin fish."'

Given that this is supported by a footnote that contradicts his
central points, I suppose you should treat it as the spewings of the
cumin or Gordon variety wikikrank.

As opposed to the the jeera or Tony variety?

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Steve Hayes
On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 06:00:32 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Steve Hayes
I recently read "The old man and the sea" by Ernest Hemingway, first published
in 1952.
One thing that stuck out like a sore thumb was his description of a fisherman
gutting a dolphin and throwing the entrails and gills into the sea.
I thought everyone knew that dolphins are mammals and don't have gills, they
have lungs. Certainly Hemingway, who had a reputation as a great fisherman,
ought to have known that. The edition I read was a school edition, and had
notes to explain various things, but there was no explanation of that at all.
Then someone pointed out that the meaning of "dolphin" was different in AmE,
and applied to a different marine animal that was a fish and did have gills.

Any evidence that this "someone" knew anything at all about either marine
fauna or AmE?

Well he was citing Wikpedia, so it wasn't his knowledge that would be in
question.
'May I refer you to this Wikipedia snippet on "dolphin": "This term has often
been misused in the US, mainly in the fishing industry, where all small
cetaceans (dolphins and porpoises) are considered porpoises, while the fish
dorado is called dolphin fish."'
And that's why I thought I should check it with the collective wisdom of aue.

But you said Hemingway, and your someone, said "dolphin," not "dolphin fish."

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Steve Hayes
So it seems that, if Hemingway wasn't ignorant, the meaning of "dolphin"
changed completely in 15 short years, between 1952 and 1967.

If you pointed this out to Hemingway, after he punched you out he'd reply,
"Sheer ignorance, madam."

On whose part?

You don't recognize the quote?

[Tony Cooper]

On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 19:33:13 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Steve Hayes
On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 06:00:32 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Steve Hayes
I recently read "The old man and the sea" by Ernest Hemingway, first published
in 1952.
One thing that stuck out like a sore thumb was his description of a fisherman
gutting a dolphin and throwing the entrails and gills into the sea.
I thought everyone knew that dolphins are mammals and don't have gills, they
have lungs. Certainly Hemingway, who had a reputation as a great fisherman,
ought to have known that. The edition I read was a school edition, and had
notes to explain various things, but there was no explanation of that at all.
Then someone pointed out that the meaning of "dolphin" was different in AmE,
and applied to a different marine animal that was a fish and did have gills.

Any evidence that this "someone" knew anything at all about either marine
fauna or AmE?

Well he was citing Wikpedia, so it wasn't his knowledge that would be in
question.
'May I refer you to this Wikipedia snippet on "dolphin": "This term has often
been misused in the US, mainly in the fishing industry, where all small
cetaceans (dolphins and porpoises) are considered porpoises, while the fish
dorado is called dolphin fish."'
And that's why I thought I should check it with the collective wisdom of aue.

But you said Hemingway, and your someone, said "dolphin," not "dolphin fish."

It is the "dolphinfish", but it is called a "dolphin" by fishermen.
People who fish for it know the difference between a dolphinfish and a
dolphin. It is called mahi mahi by restaurants.

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Steve Hayes
So it seems that, if Hemingway wasn't ignorant, the meaning of "dolphin"
changed completely in 15 short years, between 1952 and 1967.

If you pointed this out to Hemingway, after he punched you out he'd reply,
"Sheer ignorance, madam."

On whose part?

You don't recognize the quote?

[Steve Hayes]

On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 19:33:13 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Steve Hayes
On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 06:00:32 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Steve Hayes
I recently read "The old man and the sea" by Ernest Hemingway, first published
in 1952.
One thing that stuck out like a sore thumb was his description of a fisherman
gutting a dolphin and throwing the entrails and gills into the sea.
I thought everyone knew that dolphins are mammals and don't have gills, they
have lungs. Certainly Hemingway, who had a reputation as a great fisherman,
ought to have known that. The edition I read was a school edition, and had
notes to explain various things, but there was no explanation of that at all.
Then someone pointed out that the meaning of "dolphin" was different in AmE,
and applied to a different marine animal that was a fish and did have gills.

Any evidence that this "someone" knew anything at all about either marine
fauna or AmE?

Well he was citing Wikpedia, so it wasn't his knowledge that would be in
question.
'May I refer you to this Wikipedia snippet on "dolphin": "This term has often
been misused in the US, mainly in the fishing industry, where all small
cetaceans (dolphins and porpoises) are considered porpoises, while the fish
dorado is called dolphin fish."'
And that's why I thought I should check it with the collective wisdom of aue.

But you said Hemingway, and your someone, said "dolphin," not "dolphin fish."

So they did.

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Steve Hayes
So it seems that, if Hemingway wasn't ignorant, the meaning of "dolphin"
changed completely in 15 short years, between 1952 and 1967.

If you pointed this out to Hemingway, after he punched you out he'd reply,
"Sheer ignorance, madam."

On whose part?

You don't recognize the quote?

No.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 19:33:13 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Steve Hayes
'May I refer you to this Wikipedia snippet on "dolphin": "This term has often
been misused in the US, mainly in the fishing industry, where all small
cetaceans (dolphins and porpoises) are considered porpoises, while the fish
dorado is called dolphin fish."'
And that's why I thought I should check it with the collective wisdom of aue.

But you said Hemingway, and your someone, said "dolphin," not "dolphin fish."

So they did.

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Steve Hayes
So it seems that, if Hemingway wasn't ignorant, the meaning of "dolphin"
changed completely in 15 short years, between 1952 and 1967.

If you pointed this out to Hemingway, after he punched you out he'd reply,
"Sheer ignorance, madam."

On whose part?

You don't recognize the quote?

No.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Creator/SamuelJohnson

(last item under "tropes" below the bio)

[Steve Hayes]

On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 06:07:23 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 19:33:13 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Steve Hayes
'May I refer you to this Wikipedia snippet on "dolphin": "This term has often
been misused in the US, mainly in the fishing industry, where all small
cetaceans (dolphins and porpoises) are considered porpoises, while the fish
dorado is called dolphin fish."'
And that's why I thought I should check it with the collective wisdom of aue.

But you said Hemingway, and your someone, said "dolphin," not "dolphin fish."

So they did.

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Steve Hayes
So it seems that, if Hemingway wasn't ignorant, the meaning of "dolphin"
changed completely in 15 short years, between 1952 and 1967.

If you pointed this out to Hemingway, after he punched you out he'd reply,
"Sheer ignorance, madam."

On whose part?

You don't recognize the quote?

No.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Creator/SamuelJohnson
(last item under "tropes" below the bio)

Well it's a long time since I've read his biolgraphy, and it was pretty long,
so there's a lot to remember. I don'tg recall him using "snarker" either,
whatever that means.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Steve Hayes
On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 06:00:32 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Well he was citing Wikpedia, so it wasn't his knowledge that would be in
question.
'May I refer you to this Wikipedia snippet on "dolphin": "This term has often
been misused in the US, mainly in the fishing industry, where all small
cetaceans (dolphins and porpoises) are considered porpoises, while the fish
dorado is called dolphin fish."'

Ah, that explains why some people upthread appeared to wander into a
digression about porpoises when everyone else was talking about dolphins.

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Steve Hayes
On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 06:00:32 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Well he was citing Wikpedia, so it wasn't his knowledge that would be in
question.
'May I refer you to this Wikipedia snippet on "dolphin": "This term has often
been misused in the US, mainly in the fishing industry, where all small
cetaceans (dolphins and porpoises) are considered porpoises, while the fish
dorado is called dolphin fish."'

Ah, that explains why some people upthread appeared to wander into a
digression about porpoises when everyone else was talking about dolphins.

And porpoises are smaller than dolphins.

[Mike L]

On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 10:21:50 +0200, Steve Hayes

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Steve Hayes
On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 06:00:32 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Well he was citing Wikpedia, so it wasn't his knowledge that would be in
question.
'May I refer you to this Wikipedia snippet on "dolphin": "This term has often
been misused in the US, mainly in the fishing industry, where all small
cetaceans (dolphins and porpoises) are considered porpoises, while the fish
dorado is called dolphin fish."'

Ah, that explains why some people upthread appeared to wander into a
digression about porpoises when everyone else was talking about dolphins.

And porpoises are smaller than dolphins.

IIRC, porpoise skin was once prized for making bicycle saddles.
Apthorpe's de luxe porpoise hide boots irritated his batman because
they wouldn't take a shine. Meanwhile, in rural places in these
islands, you can get "porpoise bootlaces": disappointingly, these are
made of the usual cow or horse, but have neat spirally pointed wire
aglets, and are well impregnated with neat's-foot oil or something.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Steve Hayes
On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 06:00:32 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

[no, he did not]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Steve Hayes
Well he was citing Wikpedia, so it wasn't his knowledge that would be in
question.
'May I refer you to this Wikipedia snippet on "dolphin": "This term has often
been misused in the US, mainly in the fishing industry, where all small
cetaceans (dolphins and porpoises) are considered porpoises, while the fish
dorado is called dolphin fish."'

Ah, that explains why some people upthread appeared to wander into a
digression about porpoises when everyone else was talking about dolphins.

[m***@att.net]

Post by Steve Hayes
I recently read "The old man and the sea" by Ernest Hemingway, first published
in 1952.
One thing that stuck out like a sore thumb was his description of a fisherman
gutting a dolphin and throwing the entrails and gills into the sea.
I thought everyone knew that dolphins are mammals and don't have gills, they
have lungs. Certainly Hemingway, who had a reputation as a great fisherman,
ought to have known that. The edition I read was a school edition, and had
notes to explain various things, but there was no explanation of that at all.
Then someone pointed out that the meaning of "dolphin" was different in AmE,
and applied to a different marine animal that was a fish and did have gills.
But I recalled reading a book, "The day of the dolphin", first published in
1967, that is set in Florida in the USA, which overlooks the same sea that
Hemingway wrote about, and the dolphins in the book are definitely the marine
mammals that I assumed that everyone (except perhaps Hemingway) was familiar
with.
Ok, "The day of the dolphin" was written by a Frenchamn, and the original
title was "Un animal doué de raison", but it was marketed in English-speaking
countries with the title mentioning dolphins and everyone seemed to know what
it meant.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/94499.The_Day_of_the_Dolphin?ac=1
So it seems that, if Hemingway wasn't ignorant, the meaning of "dolphin"
changed completely in 15 short years, between 1952 and 1967.
I know that for many people the meaning of the word "man" has changed over the
last 40 years from "a member of the species homo sapiens sapiens" to a more
restricted version, applying only to an adult male of that species,
But that was 40 years, not 15 years, and it is at least the same species.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

As a south Florida native, I would expect a person would know from context immediately, unless for some reason, they were not at all familiar with Florida fish and fishing terminology. In some situations a person might have said 'dolphin-fish' to be perfectly clear, and it was only after the infrastructure made it a common thing for frozen fish to be shipped in to US cities from around the world, that Floridians would have used the term 'mahi-mahi', which I believe was originally what a (very)similar, Pacific fish was called, and is now used more universally. Restaurant 'fish names' and fisherman 'fish names' are often different. Hemingway used a good bit of vernacular and Spanish terms, partly, I suppose, to set the tone and to signal his personal comfort and mastery of local way of being.