Word origins can often give an interesting insight in the way life used to be lived.

For instance, our words for the meat of various domestic animals differ from the words for the animals themselves, not only in form but in origin.

Pork comes from the Norman-French word for a pig, (Cf. French porc), whereas that for the animal itself (variously pig, swine, hog, etc.) comes from Anglo-Saxon roots.

It is the same for mutton (French mouton) for the meat of a sheep, and beef (French boeuf) for that of a cow. Venison comes from Old French venesoun "meat of large game" for meat of a deer.

The implication is clear. The ruling Norman-French were not involved in the keeping of the animals; only in (eating) the end product. The words for the animals themselves retained their Anglo-Saxon names because the A-S peasants were the ones who looked after them!

Interesting! Somehow I missed this post. Let's see when that might differ. With fish? For example, we eat "lobster" or "salmon." According to etymology.com "salmon" has roots in French, while "lobster" has roots in Latin.

But lobster and salmon describe both the living, raw animal and the cooked one. These words are also what the Romans called epicene, i.e., the same form stands for the male or the female animal. Swine, oxen, sheep, and horses being more common than lobsters, but perhaps not salmon, have all sorts of extra words for the generic, male, female, and offspring: e.g., swine/hog/pig, boar, sow, farrow/piglet (as well as shoat, gilt, and barrow); sheep, ram, ewe, lamb; horse, stallion, mare, foal/colt (as well as gelding, nag, filly, etc. Horses also have all sorts of verbs associated with them: to curry, gallop, trot, etc.

That's true, but I wonder why. I wonder why there are so fewer words for fish that we eat, than there are for animals. Poultry seems to be more in the middle. There are tom turkeys or capons, for example, but generally it's chicken, duck, goose (maybe gosling) or turkey.

Perhaps pisciculture is a modern livelihood.

Many monasteries in the Middle Ages had fish farms that supplied them with fish. They weren't allowed to eat meat on Fridays and fast days.

Perhaps there are some interesting technical vocabularies of medieval fish farming.

quote:

Swine, oxen, sheep, and horses being more common than lobsters, but perhaps not salmon, have all sorts of extra words for the generic, male, female, and offspring

I don't think this is a matter of being more common. Rather, the key point is that swine, oxen, sheep and horses, as well as cattle and dogs, are domestic animals which are bred. A breeder would of course be quite concerned with, and perhaps want separate terms to distinguish, the animal's gender and whether it was a babe, a self-sufficient youngster, or a sexually mature adult.

Unfortunately for my analysis, deer are not domesticated or bred and yet we have such terms as buck, doe, fawn. Perhaps deer were subject to special considerations, such as perhaps hunting rights?

I'm going back to arnie's point that French terms are used for the meat, while Anglo-Saxon terms are used for the animal. Arnie's examples are pork/pig, mutton/sheep, beef/cow, and venison/deer.

Another to add is veal for the meat and calf for the animal.

But what about the chicken? And lamb? Here one word serves for both the meat and the animal.

'"Gurth, I advise thee to call off Fangs, and
leave the herd to their destiny, which, whether they meet with
bands of travelling soldiers, or of outlaws, or of wandering
pilgrims, can be little else than to be converted into Normans
before morning, to thy no small ease and comfort."

"The swine turned Normans to my comfort!" quoth Gurth; "expound
that to me, Wamba, for my brain is too dull, and my mind too
vexed, to read riddles."

"Why, how call you those grunting brutes running about on their
four legs?" demanded Wamba.

"Swine, fool, swine," said the herd, "every fool knows that."

"And swine is good Saxon," said the Jester; "but how call you the
sow when she is flayed, and drawn, and quartered, and hung up by
the heels, like a traitor?"

"Pork," answered the swine-herd.

"I am very glad every fool knows that too," said Wamba, "and
pork, I think, is good Norman-French; and so when the brute
lives, and is in the charge of a Saxon slave, she goes by her
Saxon name; but becomes a Norman, and is called pork, when she is
carried to the Castle-hall to feast among the nobles; what dost
thou think of this, friend Gurth, ha?"

"It is but too true doctrine, friend Wamba, however it got into
thy fool's pate."

"Nay, I can tell you more," said Wamba, in the same tone; there
is old Alderman Ox continues to hold his Saxon epithet, while he
is under the charge of serfs and bondsmen such as thou, but
becomes Beef, a fiery French gallant, when he arrives before the
worshipful jaws that are destined to consume him. Mynheer Calf,
too, becomes Monsieur de Veau in the like manner; he is Saxon
when he requires tendance, and takes a Norman name when he
becomes matter of enjoyment."'

--Sir Walter Scott, Ivanhoe

quote:

But what about the chicken? And lamb?

I don't know about chicken, but certainly lamb has only been eaten with regularity since the 20th century. I assume that earlier farmers felt it a waste to kill lambs.