# Meat-eating humans..



## shop-englishx

Hi,

A carnivore is an animal that eats meat... Is there any English word for the humans that eat meat?

Can "carnivore" be used for the humans that eat meat?

Thanks!!


----------



## bennymix

One more often hears, "He's carnivorous."   Also, by implication, "He's omnivorous but she's a vegetarian."


----------



## Andygc

An animal that eats meat is a carnivore.
A man is an animal.
A man who eats meat is a ..........


----------



## shop-englishx

Andygc said:


> An animal that eats meat is a carnivore.
> A man is an animal.
> A man who eats meat is a ..........



What do you want to say, Andyc?


----------



## natkretep

Context is very important. In many English-speaking contexts, speakers often eat a mix of plant and animal products (_ie_ are omnivores, as bennymix indicated). In this context, if you say someone is a carnivore, it means they love to eat meat and eat more or it than other people. This is the way I tend to understand _carnivore_ as applied to humans. Therefore, even though I like my chicken, pork, beef and lamb, I eat it in moderate amounts and wouldn't call myself a carnivore.

In some South Asian contexts, vegetarianism is the norm. I'd suggest _meat eater_ as the most appropriate term in this context.


----------



## manfy

Andygc said:


> An animal that eats meat is a carnivore.
> A man is an animal.
> A man who eats meat is a ..........


 
...a happy man? (also known as felix homo sapiens sapiens) 

But seriously, in scientific context, a carnivore is specified as *any* meat-eating organism. There exist plants that are classified as carnivores.
And as natkretep pointed out, in common language you'd call a human a carnivore, if he or she eats more meat and less vegetables/fruits than one would expect.
Also, in common language you usually don't call humans animals - even though, scientifically, both sub-categories of organisms are classified as members of the same kingdom, Animalia.


----------



## Andygc

shop-englishx said:


> What do you want to say, Andyc?


That you had already answered your own question by saying that an animal that eats meat is a carnivore.


manfy said:


> Also, in common language you usually don't call humans animals


I wouldn't say that. It's not that long ago that Millwall Football Club fans were described as animals.

However, when discussing concepts such as being a carnivore, it's perfectly normal to classify man as an animal.


----------



## bennymix

The effort to use a scientific and logical approach to prove "Man is a carnivore"  is going to misfire badly.  

Regarding *Carnivore*, Oxford lists as "informal" (1.2) the meaning, for a person,  "not a vegetarian", but the scientific definition is given thus.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/*carnivore*

*1.1*  Zoology A mammal of the order Carnivora.

EXAMPLE SENTENCE

Most drumming mammals are rodents, but drumming has also been described in carnivores, deer, rabbits, elephant shrews and marsupials.

===============
Humans and primates are NOT in this order.    For illustration look at any natural history page, e.g.

ttp://www.nhc.ed.ac.uk/index.php?page=493.172

[Three types mentioned]
Dog-like carnivorans    Aquatic carnivorans    Cat-like carnivorans 

[Defining characteristic]
Carnassial teeth: the defining feature of members of the Order Carnivora

[...] adapted to shear flesh.
====

In scientific terms, then, a 'carnivore' is something in the order Carnivora.   The order of primates is different.  From the primates page:

Our exhibit is divided into four sections following the familial relations described by Purvis (1995):


Suborder Strepsirhini � lemurs, aye aye, bush babies, lorises.
Suborder Haplorhini
New World Monkeys � marmosets, howler monkeys, spider monkeys.
Old World Monkeys � guenons, macaques, baboons, langurs.
Apes � gibbons, orang utans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and humans.

===
Within that suborder (Haplorhini)  is the superfamily* hominoidea. *Humans fall in the subfamily of Homininae (Hominins).

*It's worth having a look at  The Omnivorous Mind: our evolving relationship with food*
*By John S. Allen*

*Hominins as omnivorous.  (page 41 and thereabouts)*

*https://books.google.ca/books?id=TunouPeuXb4C&pg=PA41*





Andygc said:


> An animal that eats meat is a carnivore.
> A man is an animal.
> A man who eats meat is a ..........



Edited to reduce font size. Cagey, moderator.


----------



## Andygc

benny, I'm just referring to the logic of normal people's English. The second definition in Collins in the Wordreference dictionary will do for me:


> any other animal or any plant that feeds on animals


Man is not of the order "Carnivora", but is certainly an animal and, in most cases, eats meat. Fortunately, he also eats fish because your rather lengthy post doesn't change the price of it. 

Man is an omnivore. Using the lay definition of carnivore, he can also be called a carnivore. So that leaves us with:

Any other animal or any plant that feeds on animals is a carnivore.
A man is another animal (ie, not of the order Carnivora) that feeds on animals
Therefore, a man who eats meat is a ........ carnivore.

I thought the original version was a bit simpler, and certainly snappier.


----------



## manfy

I agree with Andy.
You should not mix up the taxonomical term Carnivora and the general word carnivore (the latter is also used in science as classification, just in a different way than the order Carnivora).
I can't give you the exact reason for the existence of both terms because I'm not a biologist, but I guess the general term 'carnivore' didn't fit well into the very strict scientific classification system of organisms.


----------



## bennymix

To cite Collins, which gives 'normal people's' careful and scientific usage  

*carnivore*
2. a flesh-eating mammal of the order Carnivora, comprising the dogs, cats, bears, seals, and weasels.

If one wants loose usage, one might even go with a further definition:

A "carnivore" is

informal an aggressively ambitious person   [from the same webpage, another dictionary]
As a number of scientists have observed, the human digestive system is not designed, as is the case with the carnivores, for a largely meat-based diet, though that is possible.  Nor is it like that of horses and cows, which eat all vegetable matter.   It's intermediate  (in length,
texture, etc.).


----------



## Packard

My niece is a vegan.  I'm a meat eater, though I don't eat any seafood.

I think in the vernacular "meat eater" is the term I would use.  "Omnivore" and "carnivore" sound too much like a scientist is speaking.


----------



## Andygc

benny, I really don't understand your point. You cite Collins, but that is the first definition - the technical one. I cited the second definition, which is the extended usage applied by both scientists and laymen. A meat-eater is carnivorous, whether it's a dog, a lion, a pig, a plant, or a man. The anatomy of man's gut compared with Carnivora or Herbivora is completely irrelevant. You'll find that not a lot of vegetables grow in the lands of the Inuit, and they seem to do quite well on meat, blubber and fish for much of the year.

What was the question?


shop-englishx said:


> Can "carnivore" be used for the humans that eat meat?


Answer "Yes".


----------



## sdgraham

Indeed.

One of my favorite restaurants is _The Carnivore_,  outside of Nairobi, where incredible quantities of meat (legs of lamb and pork, ostrich, rumps of beef, sirloins, racks of lamb, spare ribs, sausages, chicken wings, skewered kidneys, even crocodile) are delivered via skewers to diners.

Carnivore, of course, refers to the clientele.


----------



## Parla

"Carnivore" could be used to label humans only if they eat meat exclusively. I have never seen the word used for humans, nor do I know any humans who eat nothing but meat.


----------



## Packard

I think "meat eater" is the nearest antonym to "vegetarian" that we have in English.

"herbivorous" and "carnivorous" are biological terms and would not be used in this context.


----------



## Andygc

Parla said:


> "Carnivore" could be used to label humans only if they eat meat exclusively. I have never seen the word used for humans, nor do I know any humans who eat nothing but meat.


Sorry, Parla, but usage does not support you. This from Oxford online:





> _informal_ A person who is not a vegetarian.
> "Does the hands-on father who cooks for three vegetarians and three carnivores feel his upbringing is paying off?"
> "I used to love rotisserie, but I think I overdid it when I converted from a vegetarian back to a carnivore."
> "Theo's offers a wide range of food, catering well for both vegetarians and carnivores."
> "We honor the food choices of both carnivores and vegetarians alike, and in doing so, hope to open new windows of opportunity for folks to explore."


That meaning is not in the Oxford online AE dictionary, but at least one of the examples on the full access site appears to be American. (the fourth one I have quoted)


----------



## bennymix

Usage supports Parla in that the dictionaries all prominently give the scientific definition, where the word is for _Carnivora,_ e.g. tigers, cats and dogs.    These need and eat LOTS of meat (with the odd exception).

At Oxford, as several other dictionaries, the rigorous usage is cited _before_ the informal uses.


1. An animal that feeds on other animals.
1.1 _Zoology  _A mammal of the order _Carnivora_.
1.2 I_nformal_   A person who is not a vegetarian.


In scientific terms, humans, like apes, are omnivores;  are omnivorous.

The controversies about vegetarianism have given rise to the loose usage you (and Oxford) report--if you eat ANY meat, you're labeled "carnivore".

Of course the average, not-scientifically-educated person stretches exact terms;  he will call a lemur a monkey, for example.
==========================

Parla said,
"Carnivore" could be used to label humans only if they eat meat exclusively. I have never seen the word used for humans, nor do I know any humans who eat nothing but meat.

Andy responded:

Sorry, Parla, but usage does not support you. This from Oxford online:
_          informal_ A person who is not a vegetarian


----------



## Dale Texas

I've used it deliberately _in misuse_ about myself as a joke, and other native speakers of AE have always taken it as such, and know I mean _I much prefer meat_ not, that I literally mean I don't consume other things, or don't even like other things.

"Dale, would you like some salad?

"No thanks, I'm a carnivore."  (I am REALLY not interested in having a salad _at this moment._)


----------



## bennymix

Cambridge online supports you, Dale:

carnivore

› an animal that eats meat:

_Lions and tigers are carnivores._

*humorous *_I made mostly vegetarian food but put a couple of meat dishes out for the carnivores (= people who eat meat)._





Dale Texas said:


> I've used it deliberately _in misuse_ about myself as a joke, and other native speakers of AE have always taken it as such, and know I mean _I much prefer meat_ not, that I literally mean I don't consume other things, or don't even like other things.
> 
> "Dale, would you like some salad?
> 
> "No thanks, I'm a carnivore."  (I am REALLY not interested in having a salad _at this moment._)


----------



## Loob

shop-englishx said:


> Can "carnivore" be used for the humans that eat meat?...


Yes


----------



## bennymix

Questioner:  About my tough boss.   Is this correct usage: _"My boss is a carnivore"?_

Yes!
-----
(*informal*) an aggressively ambitious person

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/carnivore


----------



## Parla

Most of the humans I know are (if we're going to use typically non-human terms for _Homo sapiens_) omnivores; I'm one of them.


----------



## Andygc

I find it extraordinary that some posters here are claiming that "carnivore" cannot be applied to humans who eat meat. That the first entry in some dictionaries refers to the technical usage is wholly irrelevant. Would you, benny, claim that only the first stated meaning of all other words is the correct one - while at the same time supporting a meaning of "carnivore" that is not in most dictionaries? I'm struggling with your logic. Surely all recorded uses are valid?

I don't know about AE usage, but I do know about BE. As Oxford online both states and demonstrates, "carnivore" is used in BE to refer to humans who eat meat. There is no exclusively humorous intent in this usage. It's an informal usage. Oxford online cites 20 examples, of which a couple are tongue in cheek. 

As usual, I remain disappointed by the inadequacy of the Cambridge online dictionary compared with the Oxford online dictionary, but the difference merely demonstrates the different level of resources put into the task by the two publishing houses.

 In BE it does not,  in my experience, mean "an aggressively ambitious person" and I was surprised that your link referred to Collins as its source. As I've been unable to find any other dictionary that lists this meaning, and particularly as there seems to be no American or Canadian online dictionary supporting it, I'm suprised by this post:


bennymix said:


> Questioner: About my tough boss. Is this correct usage: _"My boss is a carnivore"?_
> 
> Yes!
> -----
> (*informal*) an aggressively ambitious person


----------



## velisarius

shop-englishx said:


> Hi,
> 
> A carnivore is an animal that eats meat... Is there any English word for the humans that eat meat?
> 
> Can "carnivore" be used for the humans that eat meat?
> 
> Thanks!!



In what sort of context? Where would you be likely to use the word? I also think you need to clarify whether you mean someone who eats various types of food, including meat, or someone who eats an unusually large amount of meat. The lack of context seems to be causing confusion.


----------



## natkretep

When used in relation to people, _carnivore_ has two uses:

(1) I mentioned the use of _carnivore_ to refer to refer to people who eat excessive amounts of meat earlier. So I might refer to my younger son as a carnivore because he wolfs down more than his fair share of meat at mealtimes.

(2) And there is the use to refer to a non-vegetarian, indicated, for example, in the OED:



> _colloq._ (freq. _humorous_ or mildly _derogatory_). In extended use: a person who is not a vegetarian, a meat-eater.


I think the second sense is not to be recommended to shopenglishx because it is colloquial, and usually humorous or derogatory. A little bit like how nudists refer to non-nudists as textile-wearers etc.


----------



## Loob

Shop-englishx, can you tell us why you're looking for a word for human meat-eater?


----------



## shop-englishx

Loob said:


> Shop-englishx, can you tell us why you're looking for a word for human meat-eater?



I was NOT looking for a word that applies specifically to human meat-eater... I know it's *"Ogre"* (A giant who likes to eat human beings) Or simply "man-eater".



velisarius said:


> who eats various types of food, including meat, or someone who eats an unusually large amount of meat



 I was looking for the terms for these two types of persons.


----------



## Barque

shop-englishx said:


> I was NOT looking for a word that applies specifically to human meat-eater... I know it's *"Ogre"* (A giant who likes to eat human beings) Or simply "man-eater".



You were, you know. You're confusing "human meat-eater" with "human-meat eater". Loob meant the former. Ogres, man-eaters and cannibals come under the latter head.


----------



## Loob

Yes, Barque's right.

I like Nat's solutions in posts 5 and 26:
- to describe someone who eats a lot of meat, use "carnivore"
- to describe someone who's not a vegetarian, use "meat-eater", unless you're being humorous or derogatory.


----------



## bennymix

Loob, I like Nat's posts on this topic as well.   But as to the recommendation:

- to describe someone who's not a vegetarian, use "meat-eater", unless you're being humorous or derogatory.

I think 'meat eater' has much the same issues.  If I eat a fish filet once a month, I'm a 'meat eater'?
I think this is very much political.  "Vegetarian" or better 'vegan' is a privileged, self-imputed category.  The pure ones.   Those who fall away, by even a fish-bit, are 'carnivores' or 'meat eaters'.    In the US, you (I don't mean Loob) call yourself "white", and anyone even 1/16 "black" is labeled "black".  The 'one-drop' rule.   'White' is privileged.


----------



## Barque

Indian English uses the word "non-vegetarian" (as a noun) for a person who isn't vegetarian, irrespective of how frequently that person eats meat, poultry or fish. 

I suppose that isn't common in the West, since no one has offered it as an option, though Nat used the term in #26.


----------



## bennymix

I think it's an excellent term, and used around here (Ontario, Canada).



Barque said:


> Indian English uses the word "non-vegetarian" (as a noun) for a person who isn't vegetarian, irrespective of how frequently that person eats meat, poultry or fish.
> 
> I suppose that isn't common in the West, since no one has offered it as an option, though Nat used the term in #26.


----------



## velisarius

I don't think I would like to be defined in terms of what I am not, especially since I "belong" to the majority in this part of the world who do eat some meat.  The default setting of a human being is "omnivore"; there shouldn't need to be a special name for such people, except in communities that are mainly vegetarian. 

If I call myself a non-vegetarian, that's OK - if another person says "Velisarius is a non-vegetarian", I would take umbrage because it sounds like an accusation. In benny's terms, it's like calling a black person "non-white" or an American a "non-European".


----------



## Barque

I see what you mean. But perhaps you feel that way because you're not used to that term? It's such a common term here that I (and probably most others who use it) don't think of the "non" as an indicator that that person's _not_ something (vegetarian in this case), but as an indicator that shows that person _is _something (a meat-eater).

To draw a rough parallel - the word "non-fiction" means something that's not fiction but when I hear that word, the first thought that comes to mind isn't "Something that isn't fiction". It is "something that's true".


----------



## velisarius

Some theologians define God in terms of what He is not, and I'm fine with inanimate objects being "non-fiction" - as a human being, I prefer people not to use words like "non-vegetarian" when talking about me. (I would not mind if I went to India and you used it about me Barque, since there I would stick out like a sore thumb anyway.)


----------



## natkretep

I think I would feel the same way as veli if someone described me as 'non-vegetarian'.

About 15% of the population here are Muslim (who follow rules about dishes and cutlery not coming into contact with non-halal food), and canteens often separate the area for returning dishes into the area for 'halal dishes' and 'non-halal dishes'. I've always also thought that was wrong because it gives the impression that Muslims are the majority.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Parla said:


> Most of the humans I know are (if we're going to use typically non-human terms for _Homo sapiens_) omnivores; I'm one of them.


If  you eat everything, you eat meat.

Carnivores are a sub-set of Omnivores, not a separate category.


----------



## RM1(SS)

bennymix said:


> Cambridge online supports you, Dale:
> 
> carnivore
> 
> › an animal that eats meat:
> 
> _Lions and tigers are carnivores._
> 
> *humorous *_I made mostly vegetarian food but put a couple of meat dishes out for the carnivores (= people who eat meat)._


Wait - weren't you the one who was saying that "carnivore" cannot be used to describe people?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

RM1(SS) said:


> Wait - weren't you the one who was saying that "carnivore" cannot be used to describe people?


Maybe in some previous existence.

Are you a buddhist?


----------



## Andygc

This thread is getting to be a bit like a traffic jam on a roundabout with people suddenly realising they've missed their exit. 

There's ample evidence that the term "carnivore" is used informally (as opposed to humorously or censoriously) in BE to mean a person who eats meat. I won't add to the 4 examples from Oxford online I've already quoted - thus avoiding list-writing, unacceptable use of copyright material, and tedium for forum users. Some people here don't think they'll use it, which is fine. Some people think it's wrong, which, as far as BE is concerned, is wrong, perverse in the face of evidence to the contrary, and unhelpful. I am, of course, only too willing to leave AE speakers to argue the toss to their hearts' content.

"Non-vegetarian"? In a country covered in beef cattle, sheep, pigs, chickens, geese and turkeys? Lord preserve me!


----------



## Andygc

Thomas Tompion said:


> Maybe in some previous existence.
> 
> Are you a buddhist?


I think RM's comment was aimed at benny, not you, TT.


----------



## RM1(SS)

Since benny was the one I quoted, yes.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

RM1(SS) said:


> Since benny was the one I quoted, yes.


Blame the new software.

I'm sorry to have started a hare, RM1(SS).

I wondered if I'd missed something.  Maybe I was a buddhist in a previous existence.

I think the context is vital here:

A biologist may describe animals as *omnivores* (everything edible) or *carnivores* (just meat) or *herbivores* (just vegetables).  These are almost discrete categories - the definitions overlap just occasionally, when a horse (_herbivore_) eats a slug by mistake.

The lay (non-scientist) person might easily, in BE, use these terms in a jocular manner to describe someone who likes steak (_carnivore_) or a vegan (_herbivore_).  This is by no means a technical use, but like some others I think that it contributes to the pursuit of happiness.


----------



## bennymix

Hi Andy,

I don't really see the AE/BE divide you resort to.   I'm quite happy with Oxford online:

1.1 Zoology A mammal of the order Carnivora.

1.2 informal  A person who is not a vegetarian.

Similarly, OED as quoted by Nat.

colloq. (freq. humorous or mildly derogatory). In extended use: a person who is not a vegetarian, a meat-eater.

I have nowhere said that definitions below the first are incorrect or not to be used.   But order
does reflect (as I recall) priority and commonness.

Learners should know that informal or colloquial uses may be objected to at times, but they
are free to choose, of course.

It is as much BE speakers who have continued to roil the pot.

==============


Andygc said:


> This thread is getting to be a bit like a traffic jam on a roundabout with people suddenly realising they've missed their exit.
> 
> There's ample evidence that the term "carnivore" is used informally (as opposed to humorously or censoriously) in BE to mean a person who eats meat. I won't add to the 4 examples from Oxford online I've already quoted - thus avoiding list-writing, unacceptable use of copyright material, and tedium for forum users. Some people here don't think they'll use it, which is fine. Some people think it's wrong, which, as far as BE is concerned, is wrong, perverse in the face of evidence to the contrary, and unhelpful. I am, of course, only too willing to leave AE speakers to argue the toss to their hearts' content.
> 
> "Non-vegetarian"? In a country covered in beef cattle, sheep, pigs, chickens, geese and turkeys? Lord preserve me!


----------



## Thomas Tompion

As we now have a recidivist BE-speaker basher on the loose again, this time suggesting, if I've found my way through the maze, that the jocular use of _carnivore_ is unknown in AE, I can't resist sharing this nugget (nuggets can be veggie or meaty) from The Vegetarian Times, a "magazine of great food, good health, and smart living". published by Cruz Bay Publishing in El Segundo, CA.

_You don't have to compromise flavor and texture as you cut out high-fat animal products. " The restaurant follows through on this philosophy with its " Convert a Carnivore " outreach program. The second Wednesday of every month Millennium offers a 25 percent discount when a diner brings a meat-eating friend to try the food._

Millenium is a restaurant in San Francisco.


----------



## Andygc

bennymix said:


> I have nowhere said that definitions below the first are incorrect or not to be used.


 I must have misunderstood you.


Parla said:


> "Carnivore" could be used to label humans only if they eat meat exclusively





Andygc said:


> Sorry, Parla, but usage does not support you. This from Oxford online:





bennymix said:


> Usage supports Parla in that the dictionaries all prominently give the scientific definition, where the word is for _Carnivora,_ e.g. tigers, cats and dogs. These need and eat LOTS of meat (with the odd exception).


That seemed to me to indicate that I couldn't use "carnivore" except to "label humans *only if they eat meat exclusively*." That seems to me to be saying that I shouldn't use it to mean "A person who is not a vegetarian", which seems to me to be where you 


bennymix said:


> said that definitions below the first are incorrect or not to be used.


So, should I use it to mean somebody who eats meat and vegetables, like any other BE speaker can, or do I follow the advice of Parla, supported by you, that I shouldn't use it in this meaning?


----------



## manfy

bennymix said:


> I'm quite happy with Oxford online:
> 
> 1.1 Zoology A mammal of the order Carnivora.
> 
> 1.2 informal  A person who is not a vegetarian.


 
Be careful when using dictionary entries as "conclusive proof" for anything else but orthography!
The purpose of dictionaries is to provide correct orthography and the common, current day meaning and usage -- it is not intended to cover every single (and perfectly legitimate!) variation and/or regional use, and it is certainly not intended to explain all details and the science behind it.

In this specific case, the entry "1.1 Zoology A mammal of the order Carnivora." is higly misleading because:
A) most readers assume that it means "In zoology *only (and all)* mammals of the order Carnivora are called carnivores". This assumption is wrong!
proof 1:
Sharks *are not* mammals and *don't belong* to the order Carnivora, but they eat meat and they are classified as carnivores.  
The same is true for eagles and snakes (most snakes are not mammals).
proof 2:
Panda bears *are* mammals and they *are* in the order of Carnivora, but they are mainly herbivores. Black bears, also mammals and carnivorans, are omnivores - depending on season and food supply.

B) The absence of listings besides zoology might make the reader assume that 'carnivore' can only be used in context of zoology. This assumption is wrong because we know that some plants, i.e. organisms outside zoology, hence outside the kingdom Animalia, are carnivorous and classified as carnivores.

Thus, this entry 1.1 for the scientific use of 'carnivore' is clearly a (gross) simplification of its real use in science and it's safe to assume that the remaining definitions are not complete and definitive in respect to actual and potential use within the entirety of the English language.
Nevertheless, the entries are sufficient for the understanding of the every-day common use of the word in common context. And that's exactly what dictionaries are supposed to do (in my opinion)!


----------



## bennymix

Thomas said,

As we now have a recidivist BE-speaker basher on the loose again, this time suggesting, if I've found my way through the maze, that the jocular use of _carnivore_ is unknown in AE

I had said,

I don't really see the AE/BE divide you resort to. I'm quite happy with Oxford online:

1.1 Zoology A mammal of the order Carnivora.

1.2 informal A person who is not a vegetarian.

==

I endorsed Oxford's descriptions and prescriptions (under 'carnivore')  and denied an AE/BE divide on this.

Quirky, to say the least, Thomas, that you deduce 'BE basher' from the above.  It would be gentlemanly of you to retract your statements.


----------



## bennymix

Hi Andy,

I'm not sure what this is:

bennymix said: ↑
said that definitions below the first are incorrect or not to be used.

It's not a quotation from me, though presented as such, nor is it an accurate statement of my position as
earlier and as summarized freshly in post #45, to which you were putatively responding.

It would be conscientious of you to correct your wording and clarify what you infer vs. what I actually said.

Thanks.


----------



## Aamir the Global Citizen

< This question has been added to a previous thread.  Please scroll up and read from the top. 
Cagey, moderator. >

We use "herbivore" for an animal who feeds on grass and vegetation.
Whereas, we use "carnivore" for an animal who feeds on the flesh of other animals, or who eats meat.

Similarly, we use "vegetarian" for a person who eats meat.
*What word do we use for people who eat meat?*

(Sorry, there was not enough space in the question title field for me to complete the question.)

Regards
Aamir the Gloabal Citizen.


----------



## e2efour

We can talk about _meat eaters_ (although strictly speaking they are also carnivores).


----------



## Barque

To the best of my knowledge, there's no specific word. I suppose you could use "carnivore" but as you said, it's usually applied to animals. Also, there are very few humans who eat animal flesh exclusively.

Edit: Or "meat-eater" as suggested above.



Aamir the Global Citizen said:


> (Sorry, there was not enough space in the question title field for me to complete the question.)



You don't have to put the entire question in the title field, only an indicative title.


----------



## RedwoodGrove

Aamir the Global Citizen said:


> Similarly, we use "vegetarian" for a person who eats meat.


I think you misspoke here.


----------



## Parla

Welcome to the forum, Aamir! 



> We use "herbivore" for an animal who feeds on grass and vegetation.
> Whereas, we use "carnivore" for an animal who feeds on the flesh of other animals, or who eats meat.
> Similarly, we use "vegetarian" for a person who *doesn't eat* meat.
> *What word do we use for people who eat meat?*


I've never heard of any people who eat _only_ meat. Most humans include meat among other things they eat; most humans are *omnivores*.


----------



## Packard

Parla said:


> Welcome to the forum, Aamir!
> 
> 
> I've never heard of any people who eat _only_ meat. Most humans include meat among other things they eat; most humans are *omnivores*.



Omnivore was my first choice too.  Carnivores eat just meat.  To survive they need to eat the entire carcass including the contents of the stomach and the fur and bones.

That is what Farley Mowat discovered when he studied the wolves.  They ate mostly mice and swallowed them whole.  Humans are not carnivores and were not engineered to be herbivores.  Humans were engineered to be omnivores.


----------



## Glenfarclas

Aamir the Global Citizen said:


> We use "herbivore" for an animal who feeds on grass and vegetation.
> Whereas, we use "carnivore" for an animal who feeds on the flesh of other animals, or who eats meat.
> 
> Similarly, we use "vegetarian" for a person who eats meat.
> *What word do we use for people who eat meat?*



This is a little like asking, "We have _dwarf_ and _midget_ to describe abnormally short people. What word do we use to describe people of a normal height?"


----------



## Oddmania

"Carnivore" kind of sounds like what a judgemental vegetarian might call a regular omnivore person.


----------



## Truffula

Mostly as I think Glenfarclas is trying to convey with an analogy, we don't have a word for people who aren't vegetarians because it's a default assumption.  We don't have a word for people who don't have hemophilia, or people who don't practice Scientology, or any number of other lacks of conditions or practices.   We have hemophiliacs, and Scientologists, and in general we have that prefix "non" so you can say non-hemophiliac, or non-Scientologist, or non-vegetarian - and in the right context it will be unremarkable.  

Like so:
 "There's no reason for a non-vegetarian to worry too much about getting enough Vitamin B12."


----------



## Andygc

Parla said:


> I've never heard of any people who eat _only_ meat. Most humans include meat among other things they eat; most humans are *omnivores*.





Packard said:


> Carnivores eat just meat.


Now that the threads are merged, you can see from earlier posts that "carnivore" is commonly used to mean humans who eat meat in addition to other foods. "Carnivore" has a strict meaning used for classification - herbivore, carnivore, omnivore - and a second meaning which is no more than "eats meat". The usage and meaning depend on context.


----------

