Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/31411
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/31411
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

We tend to have more and simpler words for things we talk about regularly than for things we talk about seldom, so there probably isn't an exact equivalent to "human" for ants, at least, not one the average reader would recognize.

So I think you have to ask what effect you are trying to produce for the reader. You could have them say:

> You're only formicidaen.

Which is obviously a joke and so does not entirely depend (though it is certainly enhanced) the the reader recognizing (or looking up) that Formicidae is to ant as Homo Sapien is to man.

But if you don't want to do the joke, if you want to invoke the familiar cliche in a way that the cliche is what comes through, then you probably have no better choice than:

> You're only an ant.

Most readers will recognize the cliche and will not be greatly troubled that "human" and "and ant" are not really parallel.

But if you want to do a nudge nudge wink wink post modern acknowledgement that this is an allegory and it is really about people then you go right ahead and say:

> You're only human.

In cases like this it is not really about finding the perfect word so much as finding the phrase that directs the reader's attention where you want it to be.

Original score: 4