On May 26, 1:16*am, --riverman wrote:
On May 26, 7:02*am, David LaCourse wrote:

http://video.tiscali.it/canali/truveo/2258968856.html

Nice video, but the title brings to light one of my biggest
piscatorial pet peeves.

"Jaws" is not a type of fish, fergodsake. Its a SHARK (in this case, a
Great White). The popularization of the common vernacular to refer to
sharks as 'jaws' (in both the singular and plural) is an abomination
and only underscores how pervasive Hollywood popularization is. This
slippery slope leads right through the idiotic neighborhood where
people accept movie dramatizations of historical events as accurate
and factual recreations, and then on to where they actually believe in
complete fabrications because they saw it in a movie.

I hate it when I hear some parent at an aquarium say to his kids "ooh,
its a Jaws!".

--riverman

Hm.....

How to parse that first sentence in light of what follows.....hm.....

Careless readers (and it seems likely that those who believe in
complete fabrications because they saw it in a movie would qualify as
such.....if they read at all) might come away with the impression that
a distinction is being made between fish and sharks. In fact, as we
all know (right?) sharks ARE fish though, of course, not all fish are
sharks. Perhaps it would have been better to say "A shark" rather
than "a SHARK". This would at least leave the impression (not in all,
granted, but in some) that the referant was a particular
specimen.....not a class of any sort, nor even necessarily
representative of any class.

On the other hand, "Jaws" is not even "A" shark.....real or imagined,
at least as far as can be determined from the historical record.
Although it's been a long time since I watched the film, I'm pretty
sure that there is nothing in it or in the ancillary media hype
surrounding the release of the film that suggests "Jaws" is the name
of the imaginary beast that plays a central role in the movie. In
fact, "Jaws" is (or was, anyway) nothing more than the admittedly
highly suggestive title of a pretty damned good movie (I remain
certain that I was not the only person in the theater whose feet were
up on his seat).

On the other other hand......although it's been a long time since I
watched the film, it seems to me that "Jaws" could apply equally well
to any one of three rather windy characters who were neither fish nor
fowl.

And then......well one could go on at great length (really!....one
could) but to what end?

Hollywood?

Hell, if anyone really wants to see what "pervasive" and pernicious
are really all about, all they gotta do is look at the holy words in
any or all of the worlds great theological tracts.

g.
gimme a great big AMEN!!