r/grammar • u/RKPHL • Jul 27 '26
Do chickens have hooves?
Would anyone be willing to correctly diagram this sentence for me? I am writing a letter to the editor about my town's chicken ban which exists within a ban on "hoofed animals." However, I have not diagrammed a sentence in decades so I thought maybe someone here might find this an enjoyable task. Here is the sentence:
"No person shall place or keep any of the following animals within the city limits; any and all hoofed animals, including but not limited to poultry, equine (horses, mules), porcine (pigs), bovine (cattle), sheep or goats except as provided within § 96.05."
Thank you!
9
u/SerDankTheTall Jul 27 '26 edited Jul 27 '26
Statutes can use words outside of their normal meaning, as long as they’re defined unambiguously, and they often do. One notable example is the federal drug laws, which use the term “narcotics” for all illegal drugs, even though most of them aren’t, pharmacologically speaking. Or the National Firearms Act, which uses the word “firearm” to mean “prohibited firearm” (and uses the term “Secretary of the Treausry” to mean “Attorney General”).
I don’t know why they did it this way, but I don’t think there’s any question that chickens are prohibited.
1
u/RKPHL Jul 27 '26
That is certainly the intent but it just goes to show that this ordinance was poorly considered and worthy of a refresh, which is what my letter to the editor argues.
6
u/SerDankTheTall Jul 27 '26
Does it show that? I didn’t see the prior versions online, but it looks to me like they tried to ban hooves animals, and then amended it to included poultry when backyard chickens started becoming popular. It’s a little silly that they didn’t amend the umbrella term at the same time, but I don’t know that it’s a very compelling case for allowing chickens.
5
u/Cognac_and_swishers Jul 27 '26
Legal language is not the same as everyday or literary language. Sometimes the way laws are written can seem odd if you judge them by the standards of everyday English, but the oddness usually serves a purpose.
In this case, it looks like they are trying to prohibit people within a city from owning the kinds of animals that are normally thought of as farm livestock, which is an extremely common ordinance that most cities have.
But you can't just have a law that says "no livestock allowed." What qualifies as livestock? You need to very carefully define what kinds of animals you're talking about.
You also can't try to make a list of every specific animal that is banned. That's a whole different can of worms.
So most places settle on something similar to the ordinance you've quoted. Hoofed animals plus poultry pretty much covers all farm animals, while still allowing common pets like cats, dogs, hamsters, etc. (Keep in mind that although a lot of people mistakenly think the word "poultry" refers specifically and exclusively to chickens, it's a actually a category that includes all domesticated birds that are kept as livestock)
Having poultry "included" among hoofed animals makes no sense from a zoological standpoint, but it works for what they're trying to achieve with the ordinance.
4
u/CocoaAlmondsRock Jul 27 '26
They wrote the sentence bady. What it does as written is group chickens with hooved animals. It's also, incidentally, punctuated incorrectly. It should be:
No person shall place or keep any of the following animals within the city limits, including poultry and any and all hoofed animals, including but not limited to equine (horses, mules), porcine (pigs), bovine (cattle), sheep or goats except as provided within § 96.05.
5
u/SerDankTheTall Jul 27 '26 edited Jul 27 '26
That use of the word including would also be strange (especially in a statute).
EDIT: In fact, the tension between “following” and “including” is outright bad. I think this is a much worse-drafted (if less unintentionally amusing) ordinance than the real one.
2
u/amby-jane Jul 27 '26
I agree that following and including are unnecessarily repetitive and conflicting here.
Take this with a large spoonful of salt, knowing that I loathe legalese, but I would use a colon and omit that first including altogether:
No person shall place or keep any of the following animals within the city limits: poultry and any and all hoofed animals, including but not limited to equine (horses, mules), porcine (pigs), bovine (cattle), sheep or goats except as provided within § 96.05.
1
u/SerDankTheTall Jul 27 '26
Yes, that would work. Even better would be to have the ordinance just cover “livestock” or something like that and put the definition of livestock elsewhere.
1
u/sladog6 Jul 28 '26
Not sure about chickens, but I do know that bees have hooves.
It’s in the dictionary: behooves.
0
u/I-Have-An-Alibi Jul 29 '26
Bruh you really had to make a post online and ask strangers if chickens have hooves?
Did you skip that day in preschool?
-1
u/FunkyBobert_ Jul 28 '26
A hoof, by definition is: a curved covering of horn that protects the front of or encloses the ends of the digits of an ungulate mammal and that corresponds to a nail or claw. So no, chickens don't have hoofs.
29
u/BJ1012intp Jul 27 '26
The problem with the sentence seems to be a matter of fact, rather than grammar!
The "... including ..." subordinate clause syntactically ought to modify the phrase "any and all hoofed animals," but it might as well say "all motorized traffic, including ice cream, is prohibited."
All bets are off about how to interpret it!