Stephanus 220

 S: Of course they both exist. And to that of the soulless--being nameless except for some parts of diving and other trivial matters of this sort--we must bid it farewell--but the other, being the hunting of animals with souls, address as animal-hunting.

T: Let it be.

S: So, then, wouldn't a two-fold species of animal-hunting be spoken of in justice--the one of the genus of land animals, having  been divided by many species and names--hunting on land--and the other of every swimming animal--hunting in the water.

T: Certainly.

S: Of the swimming, do we see the winged tribe and the one living in water?

T: Of course.

S: And all hunting of the winged genus by us is, I suppose, called a certain bird-hunting.

T: Yes, that's what it's called.

This is the first time the Stranger has shown any interest in the species that the angler does not belong to.

S: And of the living in water, the whole thing is pretty much called the art of fishing.

T: Yes.

S: What, then? Wouldn't we divide this hunting, in turn, according to the two greatest parts?

T: According to what sort [of parts]?

S: According to which one is done by fences and the other is done by blows.

T: What do you mean, and dividing each in what way?

S: The one--as much as for the sake of hindering shuts something in by surrounding it--it likely that we name that a fence.

T: Absolutely.

S: Fishing baskets and nets and snares and hoops and things of this sort--is it necessary to address them as anything other than fences?

T: In no way.

S: Shall we, therefore, say that this part of catching is fence-hunting or some such thing?

T: Yes.

S: Whereas the one that happens by striking with fish-hooks and tridents is different than that, must we now call it in a word a certain hunting that proceeds by striking? Or what, Theaetetus, might one call it more beautifully?

T: Let us not care about the name; for this is sufficient.

Since they are more less making up names at this point, it's good that Theaetetus is more concerned about the species itself than about what they'll call it. Probably sophist would care more about that.

Here again, the pair spend even more time talking about the species to which the angle does not belong. Why? Because Theatetus is trying to understand each species--he doesn't want to make believe he understands something when he doesn't--and the Stranger is willing to take the time to make everything clear. Genuine understanding is the goal.

S: Of the art of striking, then, the one by night I think--happening in relation to the light of fire-- turns out to be named by the ones themselves concerned with the hunt "hunting by firelight."

T: That is very much the case.

S: The one by day, on the other hand, since even the tridents have hooks at the ends, is all hooking.

T: Yes, that's what it's called.

S: Of the hooking part of angling, the one happening from above to below, on account of using tridents most of all, has been called I think trident-fishing.

T: That's what some call it, at least.

S: But there yet remains only one species, so to speak.

T: Of what sort?

S: The part of striking that is opposite to this, happening by hook, and one hits not the body of the fish, as with tridents, but around the head and mouth of the one that is hunted on each occasion, and pulling up in the opposite direction--from below upward--by means of rods and reeds; of which what, Theaetetus, shall we say the name must be called?