This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Food and drink Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Food and Drink task list: To edit this page, select here Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink: Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish Participate in project-related deletion discussions. Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this. Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here. Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested images of food Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages. Agriculture: Livestock Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Livestock task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Climate change Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

Recent edits by Superdoggo were adding WP:OR, entirely unsourced content and removing reliable sources from the article, the user did the same at carnivore diet. Please add reliable sources if you want to add content, also on controversial articles like this you shouldn't just start removing massive pieces of well sourced text without a valid reason. Please use an edit summary for large edits so we know what is going on and your reasoning. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from the article:

After the Norman Conquest, the French-speaking nobles who ruled England naturally used French words to refer to the meats they were served. Thus, various Anglo-Saxon words were used for the animal (such as nēat, or cu for adult females) by the peasants, but the meat was called boef (ox) (Modern French bœuf) by the French nobles — who did not often deal with the live animal — when it was served to them.^{[citation needed][dubious – discuss]}

This repeats a common myth, that the words for animal meat (like beef) and the words for the animals themselves (like cow) have their origin in social divisions after the Norman conquest. This has been shown numerous times to be an 18th century fabrication,^[1] though it is an extremely prevalent idea online.^[2] I have tagged that section of the article as dubious, and would suggest to replace it with a note about the actual etymology and the myth, and then add a source (I suggest two here, see references linked below), which this entire sentence is currently lacking.

There is one more minor issue, which is that our link boef leads to a Wiktionary page that has no apparent connection to the topic.

I wouldn't be surprised if this made it into more articles on Wikipedia, like those about other types of meat, about the animals, or the history of the English language in general. It may be worth checking those, but maybe let's start with just this one. I have notified WikiProkect Food and drink. Renerpho (talk) 01:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Renerpho, thanks for this, and for the note at WT:FOOD. Whenever you see material that is definitely incorrect and also aWP:Glossary#uncited information, please remove it right away. It's sometimes helpful to link to WP:CHALLENGE in the edit summary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing: I was thinking about removing it, but given how widespread the false etymology is, I'm afraid I'd get reverted. There are a lot of sources we'd consider reliable who corroborate the myth (the short video linked below does give some examples), so I'd prefer to discuss it first. Renerpho (talk) 01:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC) As anecdotal evidence for the prevalence of this idea, I was taught this as "fact" in school in the early 2000s, and I know they still teach it in school at least in France and Germany (don't know about other countries). Renerpho (talk) 01:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing: I added some more examples below where this appears on Wikipedia (as a collapsed list, because the list gets long quickly). Many of these examples do come with what looks like reliable sources; it's just that those sources are mostly outdated (2010s or older). As far as I can tell, the first scholar who raised serious doubts about the popular etymology was Robert Burchfield, in his 1985 The English Language,^[3] and it took some more time for this to be generally accepted, until the mid-2010s or so. Renerpho (talk) 02:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the absolutist nature of our WP:CHALLENGE rules, any time this material is completely uncited in the article, you can remove it with impunity.

The ones that are wrong+cited can be removed, but in that case an explanation needs to be given. Usually, it's enough to say something like "This is wrong; see https://www.example.com/ScholarlySource". This will be particularly effective for quite old sources. Nobody wants the articles to be wrong or showing outdated information, so this is usually accepted without any complaint at all. If someone reverts you, then of course you can explain everything on the talk page.

If you're hoping to contradict the incorrect rumor, then you might even want to talk to Rollinginhisgrave about whether this could qualify (once corrected) for the List of common misconceptions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, WhatamIdoing! I think inclusion in that list would be justified. I'd like to involve someone with a professional (or at least a semi-professional) background in linguistics, so I'll notify the corresponding WikiProjects. Renerpho (talk) 03:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC) I have notified WP:Linguistics and WP:History. Renerpho (talk) 03:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To facilitate the discussion, here are the two central quotes from the relevant books/papers. From (Burchfield, 1985):^[3]

One enduring myth about French loanwords of the medieval period must be discounted. It is sometimes said that the Normans brought many culinary and gastronomic terms with them and, in particular, that they brought the terms for the flesh of animal eaten as food. This is no more than a half-truth. The culinary revolution, and the importation of French vocabulary into English society, scarcely preceded the eighteenth century, and consolidated itself in the nineteenth. The words veal, beef, venison, pork and mutton, all of French origin, entered the English language in the early Middle Ages, and they would all have been known to Chaucer. But they meant not only the flesh of a calf, of an ox, of a deer, etc. but also the animals themselves.

And, based on research into the development of Middle English that was not available in Burchfield's time, from the conclusions in chapter 12 of (Őrsi, 2015):^[1]

1. The sharp sociocultural opposition as presented by Scott probably did not exist in this form at the end of the 12th century. It developed over a long period of time, in the 14th and 15th centuries. All the four words survived to denote animals in some restricted use: archaic, dialectal or technical.
[...]
3. The sense ‘living animal’ all but fell into disuse at the end of the 19th century.
[...]
8. The French element of the specific vocabulary examined mainly refers to the preparation and consumption of food. In this respect, Scott’s remark retains its validity.

Renerpho (talk) 04:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• In such a case, WP:due weight applies. A single paper from 2015 which as of now has only 2(!) citations that builts a case on an observation in a book from 1985 does not necessarily mean that the case is settled, as is insinuated here by the OP ("This has been shown numerous times to be an 18th century fabrication"). Crystal (1997), Gramley & Pätzold (2003) and Algeo (2010) do not become invalid just because of a paper that remains virtually unnoticed by the scholarly community. It's not that I say Őrsi that is wrong; but WP certainly gives preference to much-cited high-quality sources over novel and still obscure research. Eger Journal of English Studies is certainly a respectable journal, but this one publication does not flip academic consensus as represented in publications by Routledge and Cambridge University Press. –Austronesier (talk) 08:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Austronesier: A good point, and I'd even say one of those two, Bogni (2019), is quite "obscure". On the other hand, Hejná et al. (2022) give it quite some weight, and that (a recently published textbook) is a more interesting citation.^[4] Would you agree with that assessment?

  By the way, do you have access to Őrsi's reference Cormican (1990)? I haven't had a chance to look at it, because it doesn't seem to be easily available. Renerpho (talk) 09:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC) Renerpho (talk) 09:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The second source that cites Őrsi is indeed a good one (Language Science Press publishes material that is generally reliable and of high-quality). The popular interpretation of the lievstock/meat-pairs is obviously simplistic and rooted in 19th century ethnonationalist ideology (it was also Scott who turned Robin Hood into a "Saxon" rebel against the "Norman" elite), but it takes a more thorough corpus-based study than presented by Őrsi to get a full picture of the usage of the Anglo-Saxon vs. Norman French-derived terms. Crystals (1997) and Hejná & Walkden (2022) taken together can serve to provide a balanced statement about the cow/beef-pair.

  I have no access to Cormican (1990). It took me some time to figure out that "Language Quarterly" refers to the University of South Florida Language Quarterly which does not even have an online index of articles (but its volume 28 was published in 1990, so it must be the one). I suggest to try your luck at WP:RX. –Austronesier (talk) 15:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Listed at Resource Request#Cormican (1990) -- thanks! Renerpho (talk) 22:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We might need to be clear about the existence of a disagreement. A "he said/she said" approach can work well.

  I would like to see the bit about the lords rarely dealing with the live animals removed. I doubt that this is really true, especially for deer/venison (which was normally hunted on horseback and therefore not by peasants; see Medieval hunting). There was significant socioeconomic inequality, but nobody had a modern urban lifestyle free of contact with farm animals. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @WhatamIdoing: It may have to be phrased more precisely if we add it back to the article, but there's probably some truth to it. Even Őrsi agrees, quote:^[5]

  According to Cornican, “the more abstract word poultry comes from Middle French pouleterie [‘domestic fowl’ (a1387)], and suggests that the person using it does not deal with real, live birds.”

  And further down:

  Cormican’s examples (1990:86) show that Anglo-Saxon words were used for the birth of the various species that were domesticated and thus raised by English peasants. Raising animals must have been considered a menial occupation obviously restricted to Saxons.

  Őrsi concludes that

  6. The observation that some of the terms of French origin are more abstract than the corresponding Germanic words: poultry, cattle is still valid.

  Renerpho (talk) 07:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC) Renerpho (talk) 07:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not comfortable relying on a linguist for historical labor divisions. Consider "Raising animals must have been considered a menial occupation obviously restricted to Saxons": Most lords were involved in agriculture at some level until the late Medieval period. That level might have involved more oversight and less scooping manure out of stables, but it was pretty hands-on compared to what most of us see now. Even a king would be expected to know something about raising livestock.

  Goatherds and shepherds have been considered menial occupations throughout history. But it's wrong to say this is because they were Saxons; before the Norman Conquest, the goatherds were Anglo-Saxon because that's who lived in England. Their equally Anglo-Saxon lords didn't spend as much time in direct contact as a lifelong herder, but they weren't completely insulated from it. Also, while being a shepherd was menial, being the head of the horses for a wealthy lord was a different thing. Poultry was women's work, and most Medieval households kept chickens. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @WhatamIdoing: I agree with you, and the sources we have here obviously lack in diversity (and may, as you note, lack in relevant expertise). Do you have a good source for labour divisions in medieval England? Renerpho (talk) 05:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2020.03.027 is about late Medieval poultry practices. doi:10.3390/ani11041174 describes cattle over the centuries, and might be useful here because it mentions a shift from a variety of uses (e.g., cows for milk, oxen for pulling plows and wagons) towards meat production. This paper via WP:TWL (you'll have to log in there first) covers the early Medieval period in England. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  But overall, I wonder: Maybe we just shouldn't bother saying anything about this detail. We can give the etymology without passing comment on who spent the most time in the cowshed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The idea basically originates from Sir Walter Scott's novel "Ivanhoe". See here... AnonMoos (talk) 23:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AnonMoos: Yes, that's correct. While that's a blog, not a peer-reviewed article, Language Log is written by scholars, and the author is one of the regular contributors. And yet, Steven Bird (a computational linguist and professor of computer science) makes the mistake of taking Scott's description as gospel, when it is in fact the very origin of the myth:^[14]

When I first encountered the French words for farm animals such as pig (fr porc, cf pork), ox (boeuf, cf beef), calf (fr veau, cf veal), it seemed as though the French couldn't look at an animal without salivating. However, the fact that English vocabulary distinguishes field-names from food-names for certain animals is, crudely stated, a consequence of the Norman conquest of 1066 and the following centuries in which the French-speaking aristocracy ruled over English-speaking peasants. Recently I discovered a delightful discussion of this point of vocabulary in Walter Scott's Ivanhoe (1820), a novel set in 12th century England. We pick up a conversation between Gurth, the slave-swineherd, and the jester Wamba, in a glade in the ancient forest near Sheffield, around sunset...

He wrote this in 2004, a decade before Őrsi,^[1] so I can hardly blame him. It's a nice example for how that myth got propagated, and why historical fiction (like Ivanhoe) should not be confused with history. To quote Hejná & Walkden (2022):^[4]

Scott’s view of the 12th century, and of Saxons and Normans as distinct races, is shaped more by 19th-century nationalism than by historical fact. In any case, nothing like the episode with Gurth, Wamba and the word-pairs could possibly have happened, because Middle English porc ‘pork’, beof ‘beef’ and motoun ‘mutton’ are recorded as borrowings for the first time around 1300. Even more importantly, during the Middle English period these words didn’t just refer to the meat, but could also refer to the animals themselves – as could the inherited words for pig, cow and sheep. It’s only much later, after 1500, that the sharp distinction between inherited animal-words and French meat-words was established (see Őrsi 2015). Still, the fact that this distinction was established at all is a testament to the enduring prestige of the French language in England, many centuries after the Norman Conquest.

Renerpho (talk) 06:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scott popularized it, but the earliest expression of the idea is said to be John Wallis's Grammatica linguae Anglicanae (e.g. by Jespersen 1905:89). Nardog (talk) 13:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting! I was not aware of Wallis's work. Here's the quote from Jespersen:^[15]

It is a remark that was first made by John Wallis¹ and that has been very often repeated, especially since Sir Walter Scott made it popular in 'Ivanhoe', that while the names of several animals in their lifetime are English (ox, cow, calf, sheep, swine, boar, deer) they appear on the table with French names (beef, veal, mutton, pork, bacon, brawn, venison). This is generally explained from the masters leaving the care of the living animals to the lower classes, while they did not leave much of the meat to be eaten by them. But it may with just as much right be contended that the use of the French words here is due to the superiority of the French cuisine, which is shown by a great many other words as well, such as sauce, boil, fry, roast, toast, pasty, pastry, soup, sausage, jelly, dainty; while the humbler breakfast is English, the more sumptuous meals, dinner and supper, as well as feasts generally, are French.

The passage in Wallis is in the preface, pages xx-xxi.^[16] It's in Latin, but s far as I can tell, Jespersen paraphrases it closely. The connection to French cuisine, rather than the Norman conquest, has been made again in Burchfield (1985).

The question of whether Scott was correct, and what he based his ideas on, isn't new. In 1853, an A. R. X. noted, in a reply to a question sent in by E. S. Taylor:^[17]

It would be interesting to know the source from whence Sir Walter Scott derived his ideas on this subject: whether from some previous writer, or "some odd corner of the brain."

The same page also gives the Latin text of Wallis's 1653 book, and some further remarks on Taylor's question. The question itself (about the origin of the meat/animal distinction) is given on page 13. It appears that some were aware by the 1850s that Scott's etymology doesn't quite match historical reality. Renerpho (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I completely missed that Jespersen (and Wallis) are quoted by Őrsi, who says:

We do not know whether Scott knew Wallis' work or he came to the same conclusion independently.

Here's my translation of Wallis (1653). I think it's very relevant, especially considering some attempts to date the shift to the 18th century:

Nor do I think it happened by mere chance that we call living animals by names of Germanic origin, yet refer to their meat prepared for food by names of French origin. For example: ox, cow, calf, sheep, pig, boar, deer, etc., but beef, veal, mutton, pork, brawn, venison, etc.
But I would suppose this arose from the fact that the Norman soldiers were less involved in pastures, barns, pigsties, and places where the care of living animals took place (which thus retained their old names) than in the butcher shops, kitchens, tables, and banquets, where food was either prepared or served, and thus gained new names from them.

I guess there's good reason why Hejná & Walkden (2022) only date it vaguely to "after 1500", but don't go further than that. Renerpho (talk) 22:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]