Greetings,

Before I make a claim in an essay I'm writing, I'd like to know
that other native speakers share my sense that, although we can
very naturally speak of "salmon fishing," it is unnatural to speak
of ? "fishing salmon." We would use "fishing _for_ salmon" instead:

1a) Salmon fishing is illegal here.
1b) ? Fishing salmon is illegal here.
1c) Fishing for salmon is illegal here.

This forms a contrast with "hunting deer," where all three ways work:

2a) Deer hunting is illegal here.
2b) Hunting deer is illegal here.
2c) Hunting for deer is illegal here.

Of course, perhaps (2c) conveys a different meaning: _searching_ for
deer, even without the intent to kill them. And maybe (1b) works with
the meaning "lifting salmon" -- cf. "They fished a dead guy out of the
river here yesterday."

My hypothesis is that, unlike "hunt," the verb "fish" doesn't work (or, doesn't
work well) with a direct object if the meaning is to involve the sport or
activity of fishing. The reason "salmon fishing" works is that "fishing" is a
noun, not a verb, in that structure; "salmon fishing" is a compound noun.

What do you think? Yes, I'm taking a break from poetry scansion today. :-)

Thank you.

On 2023-11-17 11:52, Metrist2021 wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> Before I make a claim in an essay I'm writing, I'd like to know
> that other native speakers share my sense that, although we can
> very naturally speak of "salmon fishing," it is unnatural to speak
> of ? "fishing salmon." We would use "fishing _for_ salmon" instead:
>
> 1a) Salmon fishing is illegal here.
> 1b) ? Fishing salmon is illegal here.
> 1c) Fishing for salmon is illegal here.
>
> This forms a contrast with "hunting deer," where all three ways work:
>
> 2a) Deer hunting is illegal here.
> 2b) Hunting deer is illegal here.
> 2c) Hunting for deer is illegal here.
>
> Of course, perhaps (2c) conveys a different meaning: _searching_ for
> deer, even without the intent to kill them. And maybe (1b) works with
> the meaning "lifting salmon" -- cf. "They fished a dead guy out of the
> river here yesterday."
>
> My hypothesis is that, unlike "hunt," the verb "fish" doesn't work (or, doesn't
> work well) with a direct object if the meaning is to involve the sport or
> activity of fishing. The reason "salmon fishing" works is that "fishing" is a
> noun, not a verb, in that structure; "salmon fishing" is a compound noun.
>
> What do you think? Yes, I'm taking a break from poetry scansion today. :-)

I think your hypothesis is correct

--
A potter's creed; Carpe argillam

On Fri, 17 Nov 2023, at 16:01:23, lar3ryca posted:
>On 2023-11-17 11:52, Metrist2021 wrote:
>> Greetings,
>> Before I make a claim in an essay I'm writing, I'd like to know
>> that other native speakers share my sense that, although we can
>> very naturally speak of "salmon fishing," it is unnatural to speak
>> of ? "fishing salmon." We would use "fishing _for_ salmon" instead:
>> 1a) Salmon fishing is illegal here.
>> 1b) ? Fishing salmon is illegal here.
>> 1c) Fishing for salmon is illegal here.
>> This forms a contrast with "hunting deer," where all three ways
>>work:
>> 2a) Deer hunting is illegal here.
>> 2b) Hunting deer is illegal here.
>> 2c) Hunting for deer is illegal here.
>> Of course, perhaps (2c) conveys a different meaning: _searching_ for
>> deer, even without the intent to kill them. And maybe (1b) works with
>> the meaning "lifting salmon" -- cf. "They fished a dead guy out of the
>> river here yesterday."
>> My hypothesis is that, unlike "hunt," the verb "fish" doesn't work
>>(or, doesn't
>> work well) with a direct object if the meaning is to involve the sport or
>> activity of fishing. The reason "salmon fishing" works is that "fishing" is a
>> noun, not a verb, in that structure; "salmon fishing" is a compound noun.
>> What do you think? Yes, I'm taking a break from poetry scansion
>>today. :-)
>
>I think your hypothesis is correct
>
I'm not so bold as to go quite that far, but I don't see any immediate
flaw in it.
--
Paul W

On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 12:52:11 PM UTC-5, Metrist2021 wrote:

> Before I make a claim in an essay I'm writing, I'd like to know
> that other native speakers share my sense that, although we can
> very naturally speak of "salmon fishing," it is unnatural to speak
> of ? "fishing salmon." We would use "fishing _for_ salmon" instead:
>
> 1a) Salmon fishing is illegal here.
> 1b) ? Fishing salmon is illegal here.
> 1c) Fishing for salmon is illegal here.
>
> This forms a contrast with "hunting deer," where all three ways work:
>
> 2a) Deer hunting is illegal here.
> 2b) Hunting deer is illegal here.
> 2c) Hunting for deer is illegal here.

You are correct, Sir. (Or, Ma'am.)

> Of course, perhaps (2c) conveys a different meaning: _searching_ for
> deer, even without the intent to kill them. And maybe (1b) works with
> the meaning "lifting salmon" -- cf. "They fished a dead guy out of the
> river here yesterday."

Only with "out of."

> My hypothesis is that, unlike "hunt," the verb "fish" doesn't work (or, doesn't
> work well) with a direct object if the meaning is to involve the sport or
> activity of fishing. The reason "salmon fishing" works is that "fishing" is a
> noun, not a verb, in that structure; "salmon fishing" is a compound noun.
>
> What do you think? Yes, I'm taking a break from poetry scansion today. :-)
>
> Thank you.