3

I thought of the words earlier and smaller, but I think they are incorrect. Is there a way of referring to this kingdom and not include humans?

Example:

The focus of the class shifted from humans to the [...] members of the animal kingdom.

wyc
  • 13,179
  • 6
    The focus of the class shifted from humans to the *other* members of the animal kingdom. – Andrew Leach Oct 02 '15 at 13:00
  • 3
    I don't understand the downvotes, it's quite an interesting and valid question. – JHCL Oct 02 '15 at 13:20
  • 2
    We generally distinguish between humans and animals. Although humans are technically animals, people tend not to think of it that way, at least in English. "You're an animal!" is used to tell someone he's behaving brutishly. And if you show someone a picture of a little girl with three puppies and three kittens and ask them "How many animals are in this picture?" you're most likely be told "six." – Robusto Oct 02 '15 at 13:22
  • 1
    Well in my line of work I quite regularly refer, in the English language, to 'non-human animals'. I for one, would welcome a more concise and easy phrase if it's out there. – JHCL Oct 02 '15 at 13:55
  • 1
    "The focus of the class shifted from humans to inferior species". (If you don't consider man as the most inferior specie). – Graffito Oct 02 '15 at 14:17
  • 1
    @Graffito More specifically, if you consider Man the supreme species, and you want to communicate that partisanship to your readers (which might put off any of a scientific bent, who tend to balk applying such notions as a superior/inferior continuum to biology). – Dan Bron Oct 02 '15 at 14:25
  • I don't understand the downvote either. The sentence was just to illustrate my word-request. And word-request even has a tag on this site. – wyc Oct 02 '15 at 14:28
  • 1
    @janoChen There is no accounting for taste. I don't start worrying about downvotes unless I get several of them, or someone gives me a good explanation for them (i.e. an explanation I agree with; if I don't agree with someone's complaint, I simply ignore it and its attendant downvote). Anyway, here, +1 gets you back to neutral. – Dan Bron Oct 02 '15 at 14:35
  • 1
    @DanBron - To be neutral, "other" is perfect. I proposed "inferior species", because the question mentionned "earlier" and "smaller". – Graffito Oct 02 '15 at 14:46
  • 2
    You found it already: non-human (members of the animal kingdom) – ermanen Oct 02 '15 at 14:47
  • 1
    (See Animal.) – Drew Oct 02 '15 at 17:46
  • 2
    Andrew got it immediately. Other is required when specifying the Animal Kingdom, which is a technical biological term. Consequently, since H. sapiens is a member of the Animal Kingdom, it's the *other* members who are being referred to. Anything else would be out of order with a technical biological term setting the context. – John Lawler Oct 03 '15 at 15:06
  • Related. – tchrist Feb 23 '24 at 17:17

1 Answers1

5

...shifted to other species of ... or "to the other members of ..."

TimR
  • 21,116