|From:||David Starner <starner@...>|
|Date:||Monday, December 3, 2001, 16:21|
On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 09:14:33AM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> Certainly. The English language, at least, admits no ham
> (as a food item) that is not pork. ("Ham" is also a
> synonym for "buttock", in which case it can be human.)
Interesting. My online copy of the 1913 Webster's Dictionary has two
definitions - "The region back of the knee joint", and "the thigh of any
animal; especially the thigh of a hog cured by salted and smoking."
Apparently, though this lacks context, ham may have became specifically
pork in the last century.
David Starner - email@example.com, ICQ #61271672
Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org
Modern art is what happens when painters stop looking at girls and
persuade themselves that they have a better idea. -- John Ciardi