It's equally valued, if someone says a snake is not poisonous they are usually meaning that it's not venomous, as there's very few contexts where people are worried about the risks of eating a snake, and very few are poisonous.
So yes conversationally the rat is right as he knows the concept is mis implied.
However, it's also worth pointing out that, the story doesn't tell us whether the snake is venomous at all. He's drawn with fangs so, maybe, but it's entirely a moot point because snakes don't need venom to kill a mouse.
Elevated cortisol levels which can cause: weight gain, acne, thinning skin, easy bruising, flushed face, slowed healing, muscle weakness, severe fatigue, irritability, difficulty concentrating, high blood pressure, headache, and being eaten by snakes
I think at least some other languages have the distinction, but only in use in medical contexts where it might actually matter. English is also the only one I know that does this in lay-speech and has a group of people trying to push it further (not that it hurts anything, I suppose, to be more accurate).
What always annoys me about people 'correcting' this, is that we don't have the same distinction in German and I seriously don't feel like we're missing out.
For most things, it's pretty obvious which one it's going to be, like a mushroom isn't going to bite you.
But even when there is ambiguity, like maybe some reptile that could have poison in its skin and its bite, and you need to convey this difference to someone, do you really want to rely on them being similarly petty with their English?
What annoys me about people correcting this is that it's never been incorrect. Poisonous has been used to mean "having a bite or sting that injects poison" since forever.
I think most (but not all) native speakers either intuitively know the difference and use the right one usually, or they hear the right one used in each specific context enough to just associate them - like how we don't usually think about what name to use for a group of animals (herd, flock, just "group", etc.) because we've heard other people call each kind a certain group name most of the time. Unless it's a funny one like a murder of crows. So it's not even a matter of being petty, just being exposed to it enough
As for how much value it adds to the language, we keep words for almost anything, so the bar is rather low and like you point out, some creatures could be either or both.
For example, some puffer fish have sharp spines that one could assume are venomous, but they aren't, the fish are only poisonous, which affects how dangerous they are to be near (not so bad).
Meanwhile yes, some snakes/frogs are both venomous and poisonous.
Hmm, interesting, genuinely most uses of the word "venomous" that I see, is in comments on the internet correcting people that used the word "poisonous". When someone uses "venomous" in an actual sentence, that always stands out to me, because it happens so rarely.
Although, I guess, this is the internet, so all the people using "poisonous" could just be non-native speakers.
For example, some puffer fish have sharp spines that one could assume are venomous, but they aren't, the fish are only poisonous, which affects how dangerous they are to be near (not so bad).
Okay, this is a new aspect to me. Do you assume the venomous chemicals to be generally stronger than the poisonous ones, or is this just a matter of "venomous" meaning that they use it for hunting, so might hunt you...?
Side-note: I looked up how Wikipedia describes poison dart frogs, since those have a pretty potent poison. And well, no uses of the word "venom", so that's something. But also, they use the word "poison" only sometimes outside of the name, because guess what, there is a third word: toxin.
Toxin, as far as I can tell, specifically means a pure substance that is toxic, like botulinum toxin (the molecule). A venom can have multiple toxins.
Anyway, to labour the point about usage, it's always been normal to refer to animals that can poison you by biting you as "poisonous". Here's an example in a published book from every century from the 17th to the 21st:
1668, John Wilkins, chapter V, in An Essay Towards a Real Character, and a Philosophical Language, London: […] Sa[muel] Gellibrand, and for John Martyn printer to the Royal Society, →OCLC, 2nd part (Conteining a Regular Enumeration and Description of All Those Things and Notions to which Names are to be Assigned), page 161:
SERPENT … either that which is not poiſonous: or that which is counted poiſonous, having two long, hollow, moveable teeth, …
1787, F.S. Clavigero, The History of Mexico[2], London: G. G. J. and J. Robinson, page 60:
The Cencoatl (o), which is alſo a poiſonous ſnake, is about five feet long, and eight inches round at the thickeſt part.
1895, Leonhard Stejneger, The Poisonous Snakes of North America[3], Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, page 475:
Evidently the first thing to ascertain is whether the case is really that of a bite by a poisonous snake…
1963, United States. Navy Department. Naval Operations Office, Poisonous Snakes of the World[4], U.S. Government Printing Office, page 29:
The characteristics which separate the dangerously venomous groups from their non-poisonous relatives are emphasized.
2002, B. Kalman and K. Smithyman, The Life Cycle of a Spider[5], Crabtree Publishing Company, page 31:
These antivenins make living near poisonous spiders much safer.
The distinction is mostly about the delivery system, but there's a subtle implication that in general a deadly chemical meant to be injected (venom) won't survive being ingested (or perhaps being cooked first) to be a poison.
And yeah, I forgot about toxin, it's kinda the set both other terms are in, but also these days there's a lot of woo about removing ambiguous "toxins", which is what a liver+kidneys do, not some magic juice or pill someone is selling.
Yeah that surprised me when I learned giftig in German and that it had both meanings. The distinction feels a lot more like an artificial quirk of English now.
"Poisonous" has always also had the meaning of "having a bite or sting that has poison". Check the quotations at https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/poisonous for some examples.
36 replies
The snake is right though, it's not poisonous. It is venomous, do there's no good reason for the rat to 'correct' it.
Be quiet or the snake eats you
I'm not afraid of the snake, it's not poisonous
Your lack of fear won’t stop stop the snake from eating you anyway
Dark forest hypothesis
It's equally valued, if someone says a snake is not poisonous they are usually meaning that it's not venomous, as there's very few contexts where people are worried about the risks of eating a snake, and very few are poisonous.
So yes conversationally the rat is right as he knows the concept is mis implied.
However, it's also worth pointing out that, the story doesn't tell us whether the snake is venomous at all. He's drawn with fangs so, maybe, but it's entirely a moot point because snakes don't need venom to kill a mouse.
So we shouldn't feed the troll....hmm...
What about feeding the troll with poison?
Also even if it isn't venomous, it still eats critters.
But what are the long-term health effects of our modern pedant-heavy diet?
Well, actually armphdgg
Elevated cortisol levels which can cause: weight gain, acne, thinning skin, easy bruising, flushed face, slowed healing, muscle weakness, severe fatigue, irritability, difficulty concentrating, high blood pressure, headache, and being eaten by snakes
Ackshully, we're very nutritious
English is the only language I know to make this stupid distinction.
I think at least some other languages have the distinction, but only in use in medical contexts where it might actually matter. English is also the only one I know that does this in lay-speech and has a group of people trying to push it further (not that it hurts anything, I suppose, to be more accurate).
What always annoys me about people 'correcting' this, is that we don't have the same distinction in German and I seriously don't feel like we're missing out.
For most things, it's pretty obvious which one it's going to be, like a mushroom isn't going to bite you.
But even when there is ambiguity, like maybe some reptile that could have poison in its skin and its bite, and you need to convey this difference to someone, do you really want to rely on them being similarly petty with their English?
What annoys me about people correcting this is that it's never been incorrect. Poisonous has been used to mean "having a bite or sting that injects poison" since forever.
It's def a forced bit to make someone feel good about useless knowledge and semantic authority.
I think most (but not all) native speakers either intuitively know the difference and use the right one usually, or they hear the right one used in each specific context enough to just associate them - like how we don't usually think about what name to use for a group of animals (herd, flock, just "group", etc.) because we've heard other people call each kind a certain group name most of the time. Unless it's a funny one like a murder of crows. So it's not even a matter of being petty, just being exposed to it enough
As for how much value it adds to the language, we keep words for almost anything, so the bar is rather low and like you point out, some creatures could be either or both.
For example, some puffer fish have sharp spines that one could assume are venomous, but they aren't, the fish are only poisonous, which affects how dangerous they are to be near (not so bad). Meanwhile yes, some snakes/frogs are both venomous and poisonous.
Hmm, interesting, genuinely most uses of the word "venomous" that I see, is in comments on the internet correcting people that used the word "poisonous". When someone uses "venomous" in an actual sentence, that always stands out to me, because it happens so rarely.
Although, I guess, this is the internet, so all the people using "poisonous" could just be non-native speakers.
Okay, this is a new aspect to me. Do you assume the venomous chemicals to be generally stronger than the poisonous ones, or is this just a matter of "venomous" meaning that they use it for hunting, so might hunt you...?
Side-note: I looked up how Wikipedia describes poison dart frogs, since those have a pretty potent poison. And well, no uses of the word "venom", so that's something. But also, they use the word "poison" only sometimes outside of the name, because guess what, there is a third word: toxin.
(╯ಠ_ಠ）╯︵ ┻━┻
Toxin, as far as I can tell, specifically means a pure substance that is toxic, like botulinum toxin (the molecule). A venom can have multiple toxins.
Anyway, to labour the point about usage, it's always been normal to refer to animals that can poison you by biting you as "poisonous". Here's an example in a published book from every century from the 17th to the 21st:
1668, John Wilkins, chapter V, in An Essay Towards a Real Character, and a Philosophical Language, London: […] Sa[muel] Gellibrand, and for John Martyn printer to the Royal Society, →OCLC, 2nd part (Conteining a Regular Enumeration and Description of All Those Things and Notions to which Names are to be Assigned), page 161:
1787, F.S. Clavigero, The History of Mexico[2], London: G. G. J. and J. Robinson, page 60:
1895, Leonhard Stejneger, The Poisonous Snakes of North America[3], Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, page 475:
1963, United States. Navy Department. Naval Operations Office, Poisonous Snakes of the World[4], U.S. Government Printing Office, page 29:
2002, B. Kalman and K. Smithyman, The Life Cycle of a Spider[5], Crabtree Publishing Company, page 31:
The distinction is mostly about the delivery system, but there's a subtle implication that in general a deadly chemical meant to be injected (venom) won't survive being ingested (or perhaps being cooked first) to be a poison.
And yeah, I forgot about toxin, it's kinda the set both other terms are in, but also these days there's a lot of woo about removing ambiguous "toxins", which is what a liver+kidneys do, not some magic juice or pill someone is selling.
Yeah that surprised me when I learned giftig in German and that it had both meanings. The distinction feels a lot more like an artificial quirk of English now.
Fun fact there are in fact poisonous snakes.
Both to eat and ones that leak it when attacked!
The rat, however, is poisonous.
"Oh no! I've been envenomated by a snake!" might be correct but doesn't sound right.
"Poisonous" has always also had the meaning of "having a bite or sting that has poison". Check the quotations at https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/poisonous for some examples.
Yeah this is one of those things that pedants latched onto and isn't even true in all contexts
Neat!
But it isn't poison. It's venom.
Venom is a type of poison. Specifically its a naturally produced poison that is injected via a stinger, fangs, or barbs.
It's poison that is venenated, yes
If this snake existed, I would be in very serious trouble
This works so well it's an interrogation tactic irl. 🤣
We lose a lot of dork mice this way.