Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 (MC840302); site boring.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!mcvax!boring!lambert
From: lambert@boring.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.nlang
Subject: Re: Tuna Fish
Message-ID: <6390@boring.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 21-Apr-85 12:27:17 EST
Article-I.D.: boring.6390
Posted: Sun Apr 21 12:27:17 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 23-Apr-85 00:59:51 EST
References: <538@cadovax.UUCP>
Reply-To: lambert@boring.UUCP (Lambert Meertens)
Organization: CWI, Amsterdam
Lines: 21
Apparently-To: rnews@mcvax.LOCAL


> How come people call it "tuna fish" instead of just "tuna"?  They
> never say "salmon fish" or "trout fish".  And it's not as though
> there are types of tuna that aren't fish (e.g., "tuna bird," etc.).
> So why not just call it "tuna"?

There are "tuna pears", which are (edible) prickly pears, as far as I know
normally called just "tuna", without further modifier(!).  I do not know if
this is the explanation for the use of the modifier "fish" in "tuna fish".
A similar phenomenon occurs in German "Haifisch" = shark, where "Hai" by
itself has no other meaning than shark.  Note also that tuna fish in German
is "Thunfisch", where "Thun" by itself is not a German word.  Danish also
has "tunfisk", but no stand-alone "tun" (but, as far as I know, simply
"haj" and no nonsense about "hajfisk".)  Again, I do not know if this is a
coincidence or not.  Dutch, French, Italian and Spanish are content with
just, respectively, "tonijn", "thon", "tonno" and "atun"; "tonijnvis" in
Dutch, although understandable, sounds ridiculous.
-- 

     Lambert Meertens
     ...!{seismo,okstate,garfield,decvax,philabs}!lambert@mcvax.UUCP
     CWI (Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science), Amsterdam