Talk:animal
U.S./American usage of 'animal' meaning 4 legged fauna. i.e. phrases like "birds, fish, and animals"?? — This unsigned comment was added by 83.70.67.199 (talk) at 17:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC).
Humans
"Evolutionary biologists say humans are also animals."
Just evolutionary biologists? I was under the impression that under this scientific definition, every living thing was either a plant or an animal. We are not plants. We eat things, we have cells, and there is no biological difference between us and "other" animals. Under this BIOLOGICAL definition, I don't think there's any question of whether we are animals. (We're not plants, or silicon based, etc)
num. 2 already covers non-scientific usage, IE all living things which aren't plants, except humans.
EDIT: I just changed the sentence to something more accurate:
"Humans are also animals, under the scientific definition, as we are not plants."
This fits with the previous sentence as well. I'll keep this as an explaination. 74.14.122.167 23:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Political animal
I think this is a specific expression, from Aristotle I think, not a general use of the word "animal." Redddogg 03:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Definition
The current scientific definition is in no way rigorous enough to satisfy a scientist.This definition would allow slime molds (motile fungi) and Venus flytraps (a plant that 'moves' and 'eats other organisms') to be 'animals.' I would simply write: 'animal: a monophyletic kingdom of multicellular heterotrophic eukaryote with internal digestion. That is, animals are all descended from a common ancestor. They are organisms composed of many individual cells with distinct nuclei and membrane-bound organelles. They obtain nutrition solely by ingesting organic matter and then breaking it down.'
Movement is no kind of animal criterion. When was the last time a coral or barnacle moved? If you want to say that movement only has to apply to parts of the organism, then the Venus flytrap certainly moves, and even a tree moves when the wind blows. Dhicks3 17:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Mistake in French
There's a mistake in the French section. The plural of animal is animaux and not animaaux. I don't know how to change it. 24.48.117.59 02:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- Fixed. Thanks. — Ungoliant (falai) 02:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Citation for Portuguese
@Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV Would you mind adding a citation to at least one of the Portuguese senses, preferably one of the slangy or colloquial senses? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
RFD discussion: February–July 2024
The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Rfd-sense adjective: Of or relating to animals.
This seems like a very straightforward attributive use. Theknightwho (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per the etymology, which also accords with older usage I've seen. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per the OED, quotations (e.g., “both animal and vegetal remains”; “a form either wholly or partially animal. (who never has human form)”), and derived terms (e.g., semianimal (“half or partly animal”); cf. semihuman). J3133 (talk) 11:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Theknightwho: I am not sure if you looked in the OED adjective entry; if not, do you still propose this deletion? J3133 (talk) 12:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- @J3133 That still seems attributive to me (despite the use of vegetal), but I don't mind if we keep it. The etymology argument is probably more convincing, under WT:JIFFY. Theknightwho (talk) 12:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Theknightwho: I do not see how “wholly or partially animal” or “half or partly animal” is attributive, because it does not “modif another noun attributively”. J3133 (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- @J3133 That just seems like a noun use: "a form either wholly or partially man" sounds odd but not ungrammatical. Theknightwho (talk) 12:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Theknightwho: I have added two more quotations: “I’m no longer human or animal or vegetal” and “though undoubtedly human, it was very animal in its instincts and ways”. The former uses three adjectives; the latter, with a modifier, clearly shows that this is an adjective. J3133 (talk) 13:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- @J3133 I find the second quotation more convincing, but sure - this does seem to be an adjective in some uses. Theknightwho (talk) 13:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Theknightwho: I have added two more quotations: “I’m no longer human or animal or vegetal” and “though undoubtedly human, it was very animal in its instincts and ways”. The former uses three adjectives; the latter, with a modifier, clearly shows that this is an adjective. J3133 (talk) 13:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- @J3133 That just seems like a noun use: "a form either wholly or partially man" sounds odd but not ungrammatical. Theknightwho (talk) 12:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Theknightwho: I do not see how “wholly or partially animal” or “half or partly animal” is attributive, because it does not “modif another noun attributively”. J3133 (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- @J3133 That still seems attributive to me (despite the use of vegetal), but I don't mind if we keep it. The etymology argument is probably more convincing, under WT:JIFFY. Theknightwho (talk) 12:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Theknightwho: I am not sure if you looked in the OED adjective entry; if not, do you still propose this deletion? J3133 (talk) 12:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- RFD-kept. Inqilābī 19:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)