Interpretation v. Opinion

Type is what distinguishes one breed from another and is set down in the standard of each breed.  It really is of paramount importance, because although soundness may make a Lhasa Apso a good dog, Type is what makes a dog a Lhasa Apso.  So what does the standard really say, and what does it not say?  How do we legitimately interpret the Standard?  What are we NOT allowed to do in "interpreting" the Standard?

The Standard is a language document describing the breed. But every Standard, and especially the Lhasa Apso Standard leaves much description out.  In my estimation this is a good thing, because it makes the Standard brief and to the point.  But how are we to "fill in the blanks"?  

What is needed is a method by which we can interpret the Standard without introducing opinion - a set of rules to allow interpretation without extrapolation.   I propose, as a method, literal interpretation assisted by strictly deductive logic.  We can legitimately interpret ONLY the language that actually appears in the standard, and valid logical deductions that can be made,  remembering that language has a historical context which must be considered and is a legitimate, and indeed critical part of it's interpretation.

There are only four logically valid deductive ways to fill in the blanks.
1. Since our Standard outlines how the Lhasa Apso differs from any other similar or dissimilar breed, any anatomical characteristic not described can be assumed to be normal canine - that found in the Dingo, Wolf or Coyote.
2.  History: there have been several revisions of the standard which retained much of the original language. To properly assess the meaning of this language, we need to examine the context of the original citations.
3.  Because of the demands of climate and altitude in the area of origin, other anatomical characteristics can be deduced.
4.  The size and purpose of the breed is also a reference for it's anatomy and temperament.


What is NOT a valid part of interpretation of the Standard is de novo opinion  that has no origin in the Language, the History, Normal Anatomy, or Origin and Purpose.

So What does the Standard actually say?


What it says:


What is does NOT say:


Character:
Gay and assertive, but chary of strangers.


Pretty straightforward.  The dog should be an assertive animal that is cautious or wary of strangers.


Size:
Variable, but about 10 or 11 inches at shoulder for dogs, bitches slightly smaller.


Again  quite clear.  A good amount of wiggle room is allowed by the two modifiers , "variable" and "about".


 
It does not say that bitches look more feminine or ascribe any other sex differences - only size.  Any attempt to introduce "interpretations" of this type are additions to the Standard, not interpretations.  You cannot interpret what is not there.


Color:
All colors equally acceptable with or without dark tips to ears and beard.


No problems here - anything goes.  Elsewhere in the Standard is specified black nose leather, so a valid interpretation would exclude liver pigmented colors.


Body Shape:
The length from point of shoulders to point of buttocks longer than height at withers, well-ribbed up, strong loin, well-developed quarters and thighs.

 
It describes the proportions as longer from point of shoulder to buttock than the height at the wither.  It specifies a long ribcage, and a well muscled lumbar area.  It also requires a well developed hindquarter.


1.  It does not request a long neck. 

2.  It does not ask for a level topline.

3.  It does not describe the movement

4.  It does not describe the layback or lay on of shoulders.

5.  It does not specify a degree of angulation in the front or rear.

6.  It does not describe the desired depth of chest.

All of these characteristics, since they are left out, are assumed to be the default "normal canine".  To describe them any other way is to inject opinion into the Standard.  


Coat:
Heavy, straight, hard, not woolly or silky, of good length, and very dense.


It describes the natural coat texture and density, and asks for "good length".  Good length is historically taken to mean long enough to identify the breed as long-haired, as opposed to the wild type rough coat  or the domestic smooth or wiry coats.


It does not ask for a coat to the ground.  In fact, historically standards of the past have specified that there be "daylight" under the dog.  It does not say that the dog has to be perfectly parted in the middle.  


Mouth and Muzzle: 
The preferred bite is either level or slightly undershot. Muzzle of medium length; a square muzzle is objectionable.
 


The Standard defines the bite as level or slightly undershot, and the muzzle as "medium" in length.  It also specifies that a "square" muzzle,  (i.e. AKC definition: "blunt", making a right angle with the top plane of the muzzle), is undesirable.


It does not address the nose leather or nostrils, however we can deduce that these should be large and open because of the biology/climate of the area of origin.  It also does not address the complement of teeth.  This can be deduced as the default normal canine.  Also note it does not mention a "chin", a "lip" or a "strong underjaw".  In fact these are all associated with a square muzzle which is stated to be objectionable.


Head: Heavy head furnishings with good fall over eyes, good whiskers and beard, skull narrow, falling away behind eyes in a marked degree, not quite flat, but not domed or apple-shaped; straight foreface of  fair length. Nose black, the length from tip of nose to eye to be roughly about one-third of the total length from nose to back of skull.


1.  It covers head and face hair.
2.  Describes the cranium as "narrow" (longer than wide), with no rise behind the level of the eyes, and nearly flat on top. 
3.  It asks that the foreface be "straight" (not dished nor down-faced), occupying one third of the total head length.
4. The nose leather must be black.


It makes no mention of the zygomatic arches or facial bones (other than the muzzle length and angle.) Therefore, the default normal canine is assumed.  No particular configuration of Zygomatic arches is specific to origin or purpose, so  any references to these structures are additions to the Standard, not interpretations.


Eyes: 
Dark brown, neither very large and full, nor very small and sunk.


It specifies eye color and size.  


It does not specify eye shape. Lacking any reference to shape, the default (normal canine) is assumed.


Ears:  Pendant, heavily feathered.

 
Ears are covered with long hair and are not prick ears, but are hanging .


Ear set is not specified.  The normal canine is a prick ear, so we cannot invoke the default.  In the domestic canine group with pendant ears, there is a wide variety of ear set, so we need to look to the origin and purpose for interpretation.  The purpose of the breed as an indoor watchdog calls for good hearing, and does not require the talents of a scent hound.  Therefore an earset rather higher than that of a hound or hunting spaniel is required.


Legs:  Forelegs straight; both forelegs and hind legs heavily furnished with hair.


It treats only the foreleg structure, indicating they should be straight.  Both hind and fore legs are heavily clothed with long hair.


It does not specify angulation or width, which can thus be taken as default normal canine. 


Feet: Well-feathered; should be round and catlike, with good pads.


Only that the feet should be catlike, (short round and compact), which means they should be tight with arched toes.   The pads need to be thick and relatively large to absorb shock and increase endurance over the stony terrain of the Himalayas.


It does not cover the hair or webbing of the feet.  The default canine does not have the hairy hobbit feet of our Lhasa Apso, so we have to go to the origin and purpose to find the interpretation of the breed: i.e. the hairy feet protect against snow, ice and sharp rocks. 


Tail and Carriage: Well-feathered, should be carried well over back in a screw; there may be a kink at the end. A low carriage of stern is a serious fault.


The language, because it specifies the hair,  the particular architecture and the bony anomaly of a kink, it is obviously describing the anatomy of the tail in its normal relationship to the rest of the body.  When, in that context, it then adds that an abnormal (low) carriage of the tail is a serious fault, it is also describing an anatomical characteristic and not a temperamental one.



It does not not say that the tail is fixed on the back, nor that that a serious fault exists if it is not seen to be permanently fixed on the back .