# Reference to Pigs



## Binapesi

We don't use "pig" word in our idioms though. You know, the religion.
And "bacon" means the preserve version of a dried pork, if I'm not wrong.

*

Moderation Note*
This thread has been branched from another OL thread.


----------



## Chazzwozzer

xxx 



Keyt said:


> We dont use "pig" word in our idioms though. You know, the religion ..


Well, there are quite number of Turkish speakers who don't follow Islam and even, far as _I_ know, Islam doesn't prohibit pig but only pork and any other pork-related foodstuff.

In fact, we have several idioms on pigs:
domuzdan bir kıl çekmek
domuzdan toklu çıkmaz
domuz gibi
domuz gibi tıkanmak
domuzun kuyruğunu kes yine domuz



Keyt said:


> And "bacon" means the preserve version of a dried pork, if im not wrong ..


It is, yes. Actually, *"beykın"*, thought to be a French loan, is used by some group of Turkish natives.

The most usual way of saying bacon in Turkish would be *"domuz pastırması"*.


----------



## Binapesi

Chazzwozzer said:


> xxx
> 
> 
> Well, there are quite number of Turkish speakers who don't follow Islam and even, far as _I_ know, Islam doesn't prohibit pig but only pork and any other pork-related foodstuff.
> 
> In fact, we have several idioms on pigs:
> domuzdan bir kıl çekmek
> domuzdan toklu çıkmaz
> domuz gibi
> domuz gibi tıkanmak
> domuzun kuyruğunu kes yine domuz


xxx

There may be quite number of Turkish speakers who don't fallow Islam but our ancestors were Muslim. And our idioms got to this day by them, by their speaking. So its normal not to have "pig" in our idioms.
I haven't heard of your examples at all in life though. You may look up a dictionary, it gives many idioms. But we cant say all of them are true. Or even if they are true (even if they are not used) the "pig" is used in bad situations in these idioms. Whatever, its off topic.

And one more thing, Islam prohibits pig with its all stuff. It is "necis" in İslam if you know. (necis:filthy)

Off topic. I'm sorry ..


----------



## Chazzwozzer

xxx




Keyt said:


> There may be quite number of Turkish speakers who dont fallow İslam but our ancestors were Muslim.


Actually, our ancestors were Tengriist. 



Keyt said:


> And our idioms got to this day by them, by their speaking.


Aha, sure, like the idiom _*"yerin yedi kat dibine girmek"* _which perfectly shows our ancestors' Tengriistic belief.



Keyt said:


> So its normal not to have "pig" in our idioms.


_*"devletin malı deniz, yemeyen domuz"*_ should ring some bells and answer to that.

By the way, *domuz (toŋuz)* itself is a pure Turkic word.



Keyt said:


> I havent heard of your examples at all in life though.


How do you describe someone who overeats in Turkish?*
 "Şişmanlıyorum, neden yine bir domuz gibi tıkındım?"-  Atilla İlhan.*



Keyt said:


> the "pig" is used in bad situations in these idioms.


So what that proves? What you were saying is that it is never used idiomatically. Also, you don't think that pig carries positive notions in English, do you?


----------



## badgrammar

Sakin sakin ol arkadaslarim... 

This is curious.  I know that Islam prohibits eating pork (which probably stems from worries about hygiene and the historical danger of eating uncooked pork as religious beliefs often have a basis in fact, related to health issues).  But is the pig, the living animal, the problem, or the eating of its flesh?  Is it a forbidden, frowned upon animal, or simply one you must not eat?

Hindi people must never eat beef (cow).  But they are not forbidden to talk of it, to acknowledge it.  On the contrary, it is a sacred beast.  I understand the pig is not sacred at all in Islam.  But are we forbidden to talk of it?  Is it despised as an "evil" or malevolent creature?

If so, then perhaps the pig is worthy of some research!  They are not the dirty, stupid animals they have historically been presumed to be.

Whether or not a religion has decided at one point that they should not be on the menu (and yes, that was to protect people long ago, because uncooked pork can make us sick; cooked pork not at all) is beside the point.  The pig is no dirtier or worse an animal than another.  Hell, we're all animals!  

Sometimes we must go beyond the ideas and tenants that we have been taught and let go...  Religion teaches us many things that are not necessarily so... today.  And I'd be surprised that a modern day Turk has a problem with the mere mentioning of the word "pig".  Are there no pigs there?  Perhaps, I don't know...

Edited to add:  In English pigs carry some negative baggage, it's true.  But today most people recognize that pigs are not so bad.  Our negative attitudes come from health problems encountered in the past...


----------



## divinelight

avok said:


> The Turkish equivalent of "bacon" is jambon, obviously from French "jambon" ohhhhh and in Turkey it is pork-free.


 
I would disagree with that, *jambon *means *ham*, not *bacon.* Even though in Turkey you can buy pork free ham, normally ham is made out of pork. I don't think there is an equivalent of bacon in Turkish, or at least it is not widely used.


----------



## divinelight

badgrammar said:


> Sakin sakin ol arkadaslarim...
> 
> This is curious. I know that Islam prohibits eating pork (which probably stems from worries about hygiene and the historical danger of eating uncooked pork as religious beliefs often have a basis in fact, related to health issues). But is the pig, the living animal, the problem, or the eating of its flesh? Is it a forbidden, frowned upon animal, or simply one you must not eat?
> 
> Hindi people must never eat beef (cow). But they are not forbidden to talk of it, to acknowledge it. On the contrary, it is a sacred beast. I understand the pig is not sacred at all in Islam. But are we forbidden to talk of it? Is it despised as an "evil" or malevolent creature?
> 
> If so, then perhaps the pig is worthy of some research! They are not the dirty, stupid animals they have historically been presumed to be.
> 
> Whether or not a religion has decided at one point that they should not be on the menu (and yes, that was to protect people long ago, because uncooked pork can make us sick; cooked pork not at all) is beside the point. The pig is no dirtier or worse an animal than another. Hell, we're all animals!
> 
> Sometimes we must go beyond the ideas and tenants that we have been taught and let go... Religion teaches us many things that are not necessarily so... today. And I'd be surprised that a modern day Turk has a problem with the mere mentioning of the word "pig". Are there no pigs there? Perhaps, I don't know...
> 
> Edited to add: In English pigs carry some negative baggage, it's true. But today most people recognize that pigs are not so bad. Our negative attitudes come from health problems encountered in the past...


 
It is not forbidden to talk about pigs, it's just that they are considered filthy creatures and, in all actuality, I think that this religious ban stems from purely health related reasons. People usually follow religious rules and bans with more fervor.


----------



## Spectre scolaire

badgrammar said:
			
		

> perhaps the pig is worthy of some research!


I agree with that. And especially if there is a food taboo, one should try to understand why it has developed this way. 




			
				divinelight said:
			
		

> I think that this religious ban stems from purely health related reasons.


It is tempting to believe that this is the case. But it is highly unlikely. The British socio-anthropologist Mary Douglas has come up with a much more coherent explanation in her essay “The Abominations of Leviticus.”

A taboo indicates identity, and nothing does it better than food taboos. Douglas shows how the world was neatly categorized by the ancient Israelites. The Law was of paramount importance for them, but the Torah doesn’t say a word about preserving one's health by eating beef rather than pork. In fact, what was threatening was rather the idea that things in nature could not be properly categorized. Such things should be avoided, especially when it comes to foodstuff.

A fish has got fins – a lobster hasn’t, but they both live in the sea. Better avoid eating the latter! One shouldn’t eat “hybrids” like _pig_ or _hare_ – or a “fish with legs” (lobster), not to mention a _snai_l. What was _not_ considered to be hybrids could be found among those animals that pastoralists actually raised. These animals made up the basis for later taxonomies of what was “edible” and what was not. 

It all boils down to defining one’s own ethnic group based on _purity criteria_. There are all sorts of threats linked to the notion of “intermediary things”, things that are not clearly defined, they do not belong to what is conventionally considered to be “safe”. Islam followed in the footsteps of Judaism, not only by adopting their food taboos, but also by defining the limits of their own secure world which everybody should stick to – if they wanted to belong to the community of the faithful. 

There are rules and regulations in all religions many of which we wouldn’t even think of analyzing – partly because the analysis itself is taboo. What is called _exegesis_ may even undermine the basis on which you are standing. And “converting” to another group was never a real option.

A propos pigs in Turkey:

There are wild boars in abundance in many parts of Turkey, and tourists often come for boar-hunting. But you have to pay for it – some tourists say “through your nose”. In supermarkets in the big cities you can buy pork – but it is always well packed, and there is a shelf mark clearly indicating the provenance of the meat. 

I think most Turks would eat bacon if they stayed overnight in a Bed and Breakfast place in England or Ireland. But I can think of many people of various nationalities who would never think of such a thing. 

An interesting part of this food taboo is that some people would go to great lengths in rationalizing a prohibition about which there is nothing rational. 

As _Chazzwozzer_ correctly point out, *domuz* is a Turkish word – but its real origin is lost in the mist of time (which means that there is a number of controversies surrounding it). In other Turkic languages there are some more words for “pig”, but they seem to be unknown in Turkey.


----------

