terryh on thu 26 feb 04
this is an English question.
what is the difference between bowls and cups?
what's the definition of "cup"?
my observation is that a cup has handle(s).
(but that is true for tea and coffee, but not for wine.)
anything else?
traditionally, you bring a cup to your mouth to drink from.
w/ or w/out handle(s). but not from a bowl.
but then, how about tea bowls? an exception?
yes, i got this question while talking to a potter friend
about Lark Book's "500 Cups" project.
he called one of my tea bowls a cup. i called it a bowl.
of course, Lark Books can have its own definition.
just got curious.
terry
terry hagiwara
terryh@pdq.net
http://www.geocities.com/terry.hagiwara
Lois Ruben Aronow on fri 27 feb 04
It's a good question, as lark included tea bowls in it's "500 Bowls" book,
and I wondered why they included cups in a book about bowls.
Perhaps they can be both!
> yes, i got this question while talking to a potter friend
> about Lark Book's "500 Cups" project.
> he called one of my tea bowls a cup. i called it a bowl.
> of course, Lark Books can have its own definition.
>
> just got curious.
> terry
>
Antoinette Badenhorst on fri 27 feb 04
Yes, this is an interesting one. My first thought is that a cup can be a
bowl, but a bowl is not necessarily a cup, because of the shape (a bowl
with a belly is not a cup and a bowl with a flair is not a cup). Maybe a
cup refers to the function rather than the shape.:-) Interesting
question. The next one will be to define what a vessel is.
Nice weekend for you guys.
Antoinette Badenhorst
105 Westwood Circle
Saltillo MS
38866
662 869 1651
www.clayandcanvas.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Clayart [mailto:CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG] On Behalf Of terryh
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 12:44 AM
To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: cups and bowls
this is an English question.
what is the difference between bowls and cups?
what's the definition of "cup"?
my observation is that a cup has handle(s).
(but that is true for tea and coffee, but not for wine.)
anything else?
traditionally, you bring a cup to your mouth to drink from.
w/ or w/out handle(s). but not from a bowl.
but then, how about tea bowls? an exception?
yes, i got this question while talking to a potter friend
about Lark Book's "500 Cups" project.
he called one of my tea bowls a cup. i called it a bowl.
of course, Lark Books can have its own definition.
just got curious.
terry
terry hagiwara
terryh@pdq.net
http://www.geocities.com/terry.hagiwara
________________________________________________________________________
______
Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.
Lee love on fri 27 feb 04
terryh wrote:
>traditionally, you bring a cup to your mouth to drink from.
>w/ or w/out handle(s). but not from a bowl.
>but then, how about tea bowls? an exception?
>
>
Latte bowls, rice bowls and most bowls used with ohashi (chopsticks) are
supposed to be "brought up to the mouth."
Don't know if this is of any help (it is related to "Japanese", not
English) , but Vince's son gives a good explanation about the
differences of *Yunomi*, *Guinomi*, *Chawan,* *Senchawan,*
*Matchawan*, *and Banchawan*:
http://employees.oxy.edu/mpitelka/bowl_terms.html
Only thing I noted different at my teacher's workshop is that the
banchawan is a short cup, about half the height of the yunomi.
Lee In Mashiko
Lee@Mashiko.org
http://Mashiko.us
"With Humans it's what's here (he points to his heart) that makes
the difference. If you don't have it in the heart, nothing you make will
make a difference." ~~Bernard Leach~~ (As told to Dean Schwarz)
piedpotterhamelin@COMCAST.NET on fri 27 feb 04
From 1750 to 1855,here in America, a handled bowl called a porringer was mentioned in many historical potters' accounts. Prior to 1820 these were made wide and shallow; afterwards, deeper with a rim rolling outwards. Most folks know the big version as a chowder bowl, but I have seen them made in many sizes. Webster's Dict describes a cup a Middle and Old English from the Latin Cuppa. Cupa in latin means tub. Bowl has no Latin origin,it is derived from Middle english, bolle and Old English, bolla. Porringer is french in origin and is defined as a soup dish.
At times this shallow bowl would have attached a horizontal handle, like a tab, and this would then become a bleeding cup.
Yet, small bowls were also used in this time as "drinking dishes" for tea. Such as "having a dish of tea". Several paintings and prints show such usage.
(Don't confuse this with the custom of drinking tea out of a saucer-another subject.
In Chinese pottery, the bowl or wan is found in many sizes or shapes. The rice bowl is kung wan. A shallower bowl is t'ang wan and is used for soup. The tea bowl, ch'a wan is covered. When the teapot was introduced after teh Ming dynasty, you then have the need for the tea cup or ch'a pei. Cup is not of Chinese origin. The French Jesuits brought these items to Europe, but what did they call them? Porringer? A bowl is cuvette and cup is tasse. Not common use words in America or England. Mug is chope in French. I don't recall the use of Mug in early American pottery listings. Mug is Scandavanian, originally decorated with a human face. ("What an ugly Mug" now has two meanings!).
Now, how do the Romans, the French Jesuits on the Yellow River in China and the English influence language and the use or disuse of a particular name and when? There is your answer.
Gotta go---
Rick
--
"Many a wiser men than I hath
gone to pot." 1649
Snail Scott on sat 28 feb 04
At 10:44 PM 2/26/04 -0800, you wrote:
>what is the difference between bowls and cups?
>what's the definition of "cup"?
>my observation is that a cup has handle(s)...
I don't consider handled-ness to be a defining
difference, as I see many cups without them,
such as dixie cups or children's sipper cups.
Rather, I think one common difference is size.
Bowls are typically larger than cups. (as on
restaurant menus: cup of soup - $1.50; bowl of
soup - $3.00)
Another seems to be proportion (or 'aspect ratio').
Cups are most often nearly as tall, or even taller,
than they are wide, while bowls are typically wider
than their height.
A third, as you suggested, is usage: cups are most
often lifted to the lips, while bowls are not,
though this varies widely with local custom.
Many Japanese-style 'teabowls' do not clearly
declare temselves to be one or the other by this
analysis, but most, I believe, could reasonably
be described as 'cups'.
-Snail
The Chapel of Art on sun 29 feb 04
Hi Terry! You confuse me all the time... I thought you were in
Japan, yet now you post from South America!? I am itching to ask
what are you doing out there, but do not want to appear too
inquisitive! Anyway... Here is my "take"...
"Cup" is really not just a drinking vessel, as in teacup or
coffee-cup. There are cups with stems on a stand as in Admiral's
Cup or World Cup! There is even a Cup Winners' Cup here in the
UK! Strangely enough, these (usually) silver prize cups were also
known as a "pot"...
A cup can naturally be a *bowl with a handle* as you say, but it
does not NEED to be, hence the Japanese "tea bowl" to all intents
and purposes also being a "cup", although we do not refer to it
as such... Possibly because in the past 100 years or so, a cup
has actually become synonymous with a tea/coffee cup with handle,
as I think we all would say/think before giving it any serious
thought.
The OED defines a cup as a "drinking vessel, with or without a
handle" also a "small rounded open container" and a "part of
brassiere to contain or support one breast."
The OED also says the word is derived from Old English "cuppe",
from medieval Latin "cuppa" meaning cup and therefore probably
different from the older Latin word "cupa", meaning a tub. I
suppose the brevity of the word is the reason for its lingual
ascendancy over the alternative "porringer"? Then again,
porringer may have been considered somewhat new fangled having
been introduced by the Normans much later and therefore maybe
more of a "posh" word used by the upper/ruling classes? It is my
understanding that there is also a slight and subtle difference
between the two... A porringer was used to serve a "mess" i.e.
thicker liquids such as gruel, soup, etc. A cup was for drinking
water, tissanes and the likes.
Certainly cuppa seems to have survived where other equally old
Anglo-Saxon words have been dropped. Drinking bowls and drinking
dishes certainly pre-date China/Indian tea and Arabic coffee cups
by several centuries and some medieval "cups" I have seen in
European & British museums are very similar in shape and form to
"modern" tea/coffee cups from the 18th century onwards. To be
honest, I do not see any reason to believe that tea bowls were an
introduction along with the beverage. Indeed, why should they be?
Whether black or green, the imported teas of China, India and
Africa only augmented the existing European mixtures, tinctures
and brews, first as costly and exotic wonders and only later as
generally available alternatives to the home grown herbals.
In fact, to cup is the action of drinking without any vessel at
all! As in "cupping" ones hand or hands... Definitely no handle,
whether using one hand or two!! Also cupping something in ones
hands... "Cradle" is the nearest equivalent word I can think of
without digging out a Thesaurus. Come to think about it, one can
also cup an ear to hear better... Or is one cupping the hand at
the ear? Shouting too... When holding both hands to mouth in the
belief that the sound will travel further... Now there are more
obscure thoughts to think about!
The form of a "cup" as a noun, may well have followed the verb in
English usage, but cannot be sure from what is says in the OED. I
get really frustrated at the OED only going back as far as Latin
sources... Surely their language was influenced by Greek, Aramaic
and other older languages? To my mind the word "cuppa" has a very
ancient ring to it. And with drinking being such a fundamental
human need, the word to describe a drinking vessel should be
traceable back to the roots of civilisation... I wonder what
cuppa is in Sanskrit?
"Cupping" someone was blood-letting, presumably into a "cup" or
small shallow vessel? "In his/her cups", is an outmoded way of
saying to be drunk or innebriated or in the act of drinking
steadily... "His/her/my (?) cup runneth over"... Isn't that a
biblical reference? As for that reference to a bra cup... Well
again, hands would/can do the same! At least the Latin proves it
is a very old word, although whether it pre-dates the concept of
a drinking vessel *with a handle*, is rather difficult to decide!
I know Gayle B. was in a quandary what to call her cups/mugs
without handles... What was it you decided on, Gayle?
Sincerely
Janet Kaiser ... Snow nearly all gone... Melted away in the
brilliant *hot* sunshine we had all day yesterday and today. More
forecast for overnight. We shall see... It was wonderful to see
everyone smiling each day... So much falling snow brought out the
Big Kid in us all! This unexpected and fairly rare occurrence,
brought back the old saying, "February fill-dyke, black or
white". Usually black in these parts, so white is a treat! You
should have seen the driving though! Or perhaps not... Would have
given you more grey hairs too!!
*** IN REPLY TO THE FOLLOWING MAIL:
>this is an English question.
>what is the difference between bowls and cups?
>what's the definition of "cup"?
*** THE MAIL FROM terryh ENDS HERE ***
***********************************************************
The Chapel of Art : Capel Celfyddyd
8 Marine Crescent : Criccieth : Wales : UK
Home of The International Potters' Path
Tel: ++44 (01766) 523570 http://www.the-coa.org.uk
************* Virus Protection by AVG *****************
************************************************************
| |
|
