0

I'd like to know if it is grammatical to describe something as covered with "an animal", implying that the cover is that animal's skin, hide, etc.

I've found examples for an alligator's skin:

[The watch] has a thick rubber strap, covered with alligator and very much in keeping with the brand’s philosophy of fusion. (source).

[The loafers have] a vamp covered with Alligator. (source)

The first [Chatelaine] is sterling, covered with alligator. (source)

But are these grammatical?

0

1 Answer 1

0

I think this is more of a philosophical question than an English question.

Instinctively, as a native English speaker, I think the examples you've given sound a bit jarring.

Basically the problem is that when we say 'alligator' we don't mean just one part of the alligator (ie. just its skin), we mean 'the whole alligator'.

Now the thing is, say there's an alligator that is missing an eye in your driveway, you can still say 'There's an alligator in the driveway' and it make sense. You're not going to say 'well actually that alligator is missing an eye, so it's not really an alligator'.

However, I would say that just the alligator skin does not constitute an alligator.

This kind of distinction is encompassed in a philosophical question - 'how much can you take away from a thing, and it still be that thing'. This is known as the Ship of Theseus thought experiment.

6
  • When I say I'm having chicken for dinner, or camel burgers, I don't mean I'll be eating a whole chicken or entire camel. Regarding alligator specifically, there are zillions of references to "alligator shoes" in the fashion world.
    – nnnnnn
    Oct 22, 2020 at 0:28
  • @nnnnnn That's a good point. I think in the context of eating, just the animal itself is accepted shorthand for '[the animal] flesh'. For your 'camel burger' example - the extra noun changes the meaning, just like 'alligator skin' does in the OPs example.
    – dwjohnston
    Oct 22, 2020 at 0:29
  • It seems there is a lot of precedent for just "alligator" in the fashion world, and that does seem to be the OP's context, but having pointed that out I'll now admit I would say "alligator skin" myself even in that context.
    – nnnnnn
    Oct 22, 2020 at 0:35
  • @nnnnnn I think you're right. It does seem that from all the examples given, it's fairly standard usage in that context, as wrong as it sounds to me.
    – dwjohnston
    Oct 22, 2020 at 0:37
  • If it was covered with leather from a pig or then it would be said to be "covered in pigskin" where the leather is described by a properly defined compound noun. The existence of this noun is an indicator of the extent to which 'skin', 'hide', 'leather' and so on are considered to be necessary to the description. Having said that fur is often referred to by the name of the animal without any other word. Compare 'mink coat' and 'pigskin coat'. I suppose there is an argument that alligator leather, being more exotic than pig leather, is closer to mink than pigskin but I'm not convinced.
    – BoldBen
    Oct 22, 2020 at 6:06

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.