Why isn't cow called cow when cooked when chicken is still called chicken?

Question

Duck is duck, fish is fish, and chicken is chicken when cooked or alive.

Why didn't we keep it simple by calling cow a cow and a pig a pig when those animals are cooked as well?

Did the terms beef and pork stem from a trend that stuck, or did we always call it beef and pork after the slaughter? And Why?

Get your own question forum Indigo! Quit hoggin' my answers. =p

Different parts of the chicken are still called breast, drumstick, and thighs. You don't have to call it chicken drumstick and chicken thighs.

When reffering to cows it's still t-bone, chuck, steak, and rib eye. You don't have to call it beef to know that it's from a cow.

We don't say beef chuck or cow chuck, it's just chuck.

In my language, we call cow a cow and pig a pig no matter what form, shape, or cut. We're not confused over it. If we want pig shoulder we ask for pig shoulder, not pork.

Answer 1

The terms for the meat vs the animal came from when there was a different language between the lower class and the ruling class in what we currently call England.

The peasants, who spoke the Germanic language of English, raised cows and pigs. The conquerers, who spoke a Romantic language related to French, talked about beef and pork. The upper-class names came to be associated with the food rather than the animal (considering who was and was not raising the animals).

Answer 2

Many countries still call it "cow" because that's what it is. There's a two fold reason for changing the term. One was being a desired separation of classes in the feudal periods which would be the Nobility and the Commoners. Not much different than today really.

However, there is an important second reason overlooked by most researchers. The cow is a staple of mankind, and is in fact considered the next "being" in the line of importance to man on this planet. They are also "red meat" just as we are, so in a slight way it puts humans somewhat along the lines of a cannibal by eating something so close to our own species. I for one, will not do it. I could get into this subject more through my past research, but suffice it to say for your answer that even the nobility would rather "not think" of it for what it really was. So a slight name change was highly desirable to disassociate the situation and not be reminded of this very near cannibalistic act.

Answer 3

For the answer to this question we would desire to constantly roll the clock back to the year 1066 and the Norman conquest of england. The ruling French have been basically in contact approximately eating food, on an identical time as the subjugated Anglo-Saxons have been busy elevating it. A relic of that fact survives in English right this moment. The be conscious for an animal it somewhat is to be eaten is usually of French derivation, on an identical time as the living animal is often utilized by using an Anglo-Saxon term, thus: pink meat/pig, pink meat/cow, chicken/hen (or different birds).

Answer 4

A cow is divided up into many parts. A chicken only has about 8. Those parts have names too.

Answer 5

Probably because, for example, with pork you can make so many different kinds of things (ham, bacon, porkchops) and so just calling it pork would be too vague when talking about something in particular as where chicken is just chicken.

Answer 6

Snake around here, Is stills nake,and so forth. And cow is really called cow believe it or not. i guess it depends on what you call it.

Answer 7

That's a very good question. From now on, no more steak for me. I'm eating strictly COWWWWW ! ! !

Answer 8

If an orange is an orange... why isn't an apple a red?

Hey now... :-p