# 鳥, 動物



## Explosión_Implosión

皆さん、おはよう  ございます

I have two questions:

*Which of the following sentences is right?*, or are both right?
*A 鳥 (bird) is an 動物 (animal) .
A 鳥 (bird) is not an 動物 (animal). *

I ask that because I read a text that puzzles me a lot:
there talk about a forest where are animals and birds and a bat,
動物　[どうぶつ]　が　います。  鳥［とり］も　います。
there talk about war between animals and birds,
there talk about the king of animals (lion) and the king of birds (eagle).

So reading that, it seems that 鳥 are not 動物.




Yes, the text I was reading was the fable of Aesop.
But it was an easy adapted text for learners, so the grammar and the vocabulary are intentionally limited.
But there's a difference between being limited and being wrong!

*In Japanese, how is the fable of Aesop in its usual version (using normal vocabulary)?*
Do it says, for example, "*flying animals" *instead "birds", and "*mammal animals" *instead "animals"?, 
or do it also says "*birds"* and "*animals" *as the adapted version I read?


Thanks for your help!


----------



## karlalou

I don't remember exact word of Aesop nor how it's translated into Japanese, but how we Japanese think about it is as same as the rest of the world. Though technically speaking birds are a kind of animal, especially for children's stories they are often very loosely categorized and often 'animals' are those animals that run around the ground and can't fly and there's another kind of living creature which is called 'birds'.


----------



## Explosión_Implosión

Thank you for your answer!
So, the vocabulary of that book was not wrong or forced, but usual. That's interesting.



karlalou said:


> [...] how we Japanese think about it is as same as the rest of the world. [...]



I also thought that this was equal in all the world, but I see it is different in Japanese and Spanish.
(I don't know how it works in English, but in that language I never had problems with that words, at least consciously)



karlalou said:


> [...] often 'animals' are those animals that run around the ground and can't fly and there's another kind of living creature which is called 'birds'.



It's very interesting to know that in Japan in children's stories the concept of animal is that.
In Spain absolutely no book would make that separation,
because in Spanish "_animal_" [in English "animal"] means "living being which is not human" (living being that can move, so no plats).

So, when I read in Japanese *"there are animals and also birds" *I feel a shock as if I would read in my language *"*there are 10 people and 3 Frenchmen"*. I needed to read several times all the animal-bird sentences for be sure I was reading them well. And the dictionary was useless.

A human of course is an animal, also in Spain. But in children's stories and in a everyday language (out the scientific language), here the usual concept is that: *animal=not human / human=not animal*




But in Spanish there's a word perhaps a bit similar to your description:

_—"las bestias_" ["the beasts"] is a concept associated with dangerous, ugly, brute, wild animals. Usually big animals that makes menacing moves and sounds, and have jaws.
But
_—"las aves"_ or _"los pájaros"_ ("the birds") are small fragile and delicate animals who sing, fly, and who will not try to kill you.
(well, "_*ave*"_ and "_*pájaro*"_ are not synonyms always, but that's not the subject here, so allow me simplify)

So I if I heard "_bestia" _["beast"] I will not think in a _"pájaro"_ [bird].
(At least in a normal bird!)

So, it seems that 動物 [どうぶつ] in Spanish means not only _animal_ [animal] but perhaps also _bestia_ [beast] in some contexts. All dictionaries I consulted forgot that meaning.


----------



## frequency

Explosión_Implosión said:


> "*there are 10 people and 3 Frenchmen"*.


This is 10 + 3, isn't it?

動物　[どうぶつ]　が　います。 鳥［とり］も　います。
I read this one like 'There are animals in the forest, and birds are included in them.', also as you did. Note that this is my explanation to you, not translation.

The large category, animals, is mentioned first and the small category, birds, comes second, going down to the lower hierarchy. I think this kind of stuff happens also in Spanish and other languages. Yes I mean that Japanese thinks birds are an animal. 
日本語で、鳥って動物と見なされているよね（震え声）？


I'm not sure about the version of the fable of Aesop you're talking about. Is that a simplified version for Japanese learners? We can check for you, so give us a link or image of the book you're reading if you want to.


----------



## YangMuye

I think the point is not if 鳥 is considered as a 動物, but how the two words are used in Japanese. It has nothing to do with the common sense and logic, but more to do with grammar.

Many words can be used in both the wider and narrower sense. For example, 人間 is definitely a 動物, but it is still natural to ask about 人間と動物の違い. In a different context, 人 may contrast with 自分, for instance, 人のこと typically means 他人のこと. You will not say something like 自分と人間との関係, though 人 can often replace 人間. In Chinese, it is common to ask questions like 魚か肉どっちが食べたい, but juxtaposing 魚肉 and 肉 would sound odd despite the fact that 魚肉 is 魚. I think it is purely about grammar.

So the question is: is it common to say 鳥と動物がいる in Japanese, or the wording is understandable yet not very refined?

I suppose 鳥と動物 is somewhat common.


----------



## Wishfull

Explosión_Implosión said:


> 皆さん、おはよう  ございます
> 
> *In Japanese, how is the fable of Aesop in its usual version (using normal vocabulary)?*
> Do it says, for example, "*flying animals" *instead "birds", and "*mammal animals" *instead "animals"?,
> or do it also says "*birds"* and "*animals" *as the adapted version I read?
> 
> Thanks for your help!



こんばんは！

イソップ物語の卑怯者のコウモリの話ですね。
生物学的に正しい用語で述べると、コウモリは自分を『鳥類』であると言ったり『哺乳類』であると言って優柔不断な態度を取るのでしたよね。
しかし『哺乳類』とか『鳥類』という難しい用語は子供の童話では用いることができないから、イソップ童話では
『けもの』と『とり』と記載されていることが多いのではないかと思います。

『どうぶつ』と『とり』と訳すのは、下手な訳だと思います。『とり』も『どうぶつ』に含まれてしまうと考える読者がいれば、卑怯者のコウモリの論理があやふやになってしまうからです。
しかし、『どうぶつ』と『とり』と訳しているバージョンのイソップ物語を読んだ場合は、文脈から、この場合は『どうぶつ』＝mammal(哺乳類）、『とり』＝birds(鳥類）
と読まねばならない、と思わなければならないのが日本語だと思います。

『どうぶつ』は『植物ではない生き物』という考えに立つと、人間も、哺乳類も、鳥類も、爬虫類や両生類も、魚類も、昆虫も含まれ得ることになりますが、その場合の文脈次第です。
昆虫や魚類は普段は「動物」として想定していないように思います。
普通は『動物園』の中で飼育されている動物達を『動物』と呼ぶことが多いと思います。
フラミンゴやペンギンなどを動物園で見かけますので、『とり』も『どうぶつ』であると、幼稚園の園児たちも思うのではないでしょうか。


----------



## YangMuye

Wishfull said:


> 『どうぶつ』は『植物ではない生き物』という考えに立つと


司馬遼太郎の『２１世紀に生きる君たちへ』によると、


> そこに空気と水、それに土などという自然があって、人間や他の動植物、さらには微生物にいたるまでが、それに依存しつつ生きているということである。


人間と*他の*動物以外にも微生物が存在しているらしいです。

「鳥と動物」でグッグルで検索したら、かなりヒットしたので、こういう言い方はけっこうされているのではないかと思ってしまいますが、どうでしょうか。


----------



## Flaminius

The original language of this story may be Latin:
http://aesopus.pbworks.com/w/page/1471693/barlow030
The war is fought between _bestiae_ (beasts) and _aves_ (birds).  Spanish no doubt took the basic sense of _bestia_ from Latin (same word; but you see it applied to an ostrich in Latin).  The Japanese 動物 is both for beasts and animals.  The teaching material could have used 獣 (_kemono_), which excludes humans and birds.  The problem with it is that it is not as common as 動物.


----------



## Explosión_Implosión

皆さん、　ありがとう　ございます!



獣（けもの）　は　毛　を　持って　います。

鳥　は　羽　を　持って　います。

コウモリ　は　毛　と　羽　を　持って　います。( because 羽　means about feathers and plumes but also about wings, it isn't?)

『獣（けもの）』と『鳥（とり）』の　代わり　に 『毛動物』 と『羽動物』、それ　が　正しい　だろう　か？

子供　の　本　で　は　用いる　こと　が　できます　か？　難しい　言葉　が　です　か？





Flaminius said:


> The original language of this story may be Latin:
> http://aesopus.pbworks.com/w/page/1471693/barlow030


Aesop (Αἴσωπος) was Greek so I think the original language of this story is Ancient Greek 
because Newton was English speaker who needed wrote in Latin, Casanova was Italian speaker who needed wrote in French, I am Spanish speaker who need wrote in English, but Ancient Greece was still place and time without an "International Language of the moment" so without authors trying speaking in it.
But in some way you are right: despite Aesop (Αἴσωπος) was from Ancient Greece, and also the person who first compiled his fables (Demetrio de Falero Δημήτριος ὁ Φαληρεύς), no writings by them have survived; so despite Latin is not the original language, I think the oldest surviving version yes is Latin.
(Here the Greek language version of this fable, wrote as published in 1900s :  http://el.wikisource.org/wiki/Αισώπου_Μύθοι/Νυκτερίς_και_βάτος_και_αίθυια)


----------



## Flaminius

「毛動物」や「羽動物」のような新しいことばを短い文章で使うことは余り考えられません。また既存の語で明快な表現ができるので、文学的修辞より平易さを優先する子供の本でこれらの新語が使われる可能性はないでしょう。「動物」には「獣」と同義でつかう用法があります。この文脈で「動物」が人間や鳥類を含まないことは明らかです。また、「羽動物」には昆虫や翼竜が入る可能性があり、鳥の言い換えとして不適切です。

You are right that _The Birds and Four-Legged Animals_ may not be originally in Latin.  I used "original language" in a more casual sense, that is, the language (of the text) from which translations and rewrites as we know them today are made.  The Greek text you provided a link to is Chambry 250 = Perry 171, but you must have intended Chambry 251 = Perry 172.  The latter is about a double-dealing bat trying to escape from two weasels.  I provide the links below for the Greek original and translations:
http://users.uoa.gr/~nektar/history/tributes/aesop's_fables/chambry.htm

English translations
The Bat, the Thorn Bush, and the Gull
The Bat and the two Weasels


----------

