# Pig & suck sounds



## rupertbrooke

Is it true that there are no onomatopoeic sounds for pigs or ducks in Turkish? Some say it is because pigs are taboo in Islam? That doesn't apply to ducks, however! Don't they say vak,vak?


----------



## ancalimon

We use "vak" for ducks.

The thing about the onomatopoeic sound for pigs is that we can speak it but can not write it. 

PS: Pigs were a taboo before Islam.


----------



## rupertbrooke

That is fascinating! I have a contact on Skype who gave me the sound verbally but it is a very interesting taboo.


----------



## ancalimon

rupertbrooke said:


> That is fascinating! I have a contact on Skype who gave me the sound verbally but it is a very interesting taboo.



Making the sound or writing it down is not the taboo.   We are simply unable to write down that sound. 

It's a taboo to eat them because they are not herbivores. Also, they are dirty and cleanliness was very important for semi-nomadic Turks. (that's why they invented spoons and forks. Not to look posh but because water was very precious for them and being dirty could lead to an epidemic)


----------



## rupertbrooke

Thanks! It is an interesting verbal taboo. I had assumed you meant that, so I asked a friend on Skype but it seems to be privileged knowledge since many papers I have read on Turkish taboos are unaware of the fact.


----------



## ancalimon

rupertbrooke said:


> Thanks! It is an interesting verbal taboo. I had assumed you meant that, so I asked a friend on Skype but it seems to be privileged knowledge since many papers I have read on Turkish taboos are unaware of the fact.



Once again...  You misunderstood me. It's not a taboo to make or write down the sound a pig makes.


----------



## adelan

Although it is not relevant to the concept of the forum, I have to tell you the one and the only and the sole taboo is eating pork like ancalimon said, don't believe anything else that you hear from skype internet chat etc


----------



## rupertbrooke

are complicated things. The argument from hygiene is a recent scholarly rationalisation. The laws of kashrut and other dietary restrictions first outlined in Deuteronomy and Leviticus prohibit the consumption of certain “unclean” animals that either don’t chew their cud or don’t have cloven hooves, such as pigs, camels and rabbits. Likewise, while the Hebrew Bible permits the eating of fish with fins and scales, shellfish like lobsters and crabs are an abomination. Why were such seemingly innocuous physiological traits so objectionable to the early Israelites? One possible reason may be that the Israelites wanted some way to distinguish themselves from their non-Hebrew neighbours. Archaeological excavations of Iron Age I sites in Israel have shown that while pigs were a popular part of the Philistine diet, they were entirely absent from the herd-based economy of the Israelites. According to Ronald Hendel, such culinary distinctions soon became codified markers of cultural identity, whereby “the Philistine treat became an Israelite taboo.”* Perhaps similar efforts to affirm Israel’s uniqueness lay at the heart of other animal prohibitions. 

Back to the pig's grunt: the linguistic point I was unclear about. I'm sorry that taboo you explained to me wasn't phrased unequivocally enough: it is the ambiguity of 'unable' that puzzled me. 'Making the sound or writing it down is not the taboo: we are simply unable to write down that sound' & 'we can speak it but cannot write it'?? So the taboo is that 'something' prohibits the process of putting pen to paper. This is wonderful cultural background but I think no such taboo is going to stop Rallino from deleting this debate.


----------

