Capital Letters?? (2 Viewers)

[Mickymouse]

I don't know if any one is interested but if you go to http://www.yourdictionary.com/ they have a rather nice forum devoted to words and such.

Mick

 

[Charles Harper]

... as usual I missed all the fun. Missing '-s' plurals has something to do with venery, as I recall-- many game birds and animals considered as meat...

 

[scampo]

Hi Steve,

I may know them myself (much of the time) - I'm thinking more of the immense confusion it gives to birders with less knowledge than you or I do.

And there are plenty of birds which I genuinely don't know whether they're derived from proper names or not, nor any reasonable way of finding out . . . how about a Huia? or an ‘Apapane? an ‘I’iwi? or an O’ahu ‘Amakihi? (yes, these are real birds that English speakers have to deal with, on New Zealand and Hawaii, respectively )

Michael

I take your point, but locals will be better placed than foreigners on such things. To non-locals these are recondite names to be sure. It would be better to use lower case in my view as that follows conventions most of the time.

I don't think you can make a rule based on ignorance - just accept that some will get it wrong and not be po-faced about their error. To draw a poor analogy, fine wines exist even if those who can appreciate their subtleties are a very few; no reason why language should be different at all.

 

[Bluetail]

... as usual I missed all the fun. Missing '-s' plurals has something to do with venery, as I recall-- many game birds and animals considered as meat...

That would fit with my perception that it's mainly wildfowl and waders that are treated this way. Would Sir like another helping of Golden Plover?

 

[robinm]

Just another example that came to mind.

If, days after a birding trip, I posted here that I had seen a solitary sandpiper should I be accused of suppression or terminological inexactitude?

 

[Bluetail]

Just another example that came to mind.

If, days after a birding trip, I posted here that I had seen a solitary sandpiper should I be accused of suppression or terminological inexactitude?

That might depend whether it was a white-rumped sandpiper or not.

 

[robinm]

That might depend whether it was a white-rumped sandpiper or not.

Don't you mean White-rumped Sandpiper 3

 

[Bluetail]

Actually, I meant Green Sandpiper. I think we rest our case!

 

[Steve Lister]

Having started this thread and then come back in 90 posts later I am amazed at how it has digressed. The overall impression that I get is that although it is , according to Scampo Steve, definitely wrong to use capital letters on grammatical grounds, it makes much more sense to capitalize (or capitalise) to aid clarity. I liked Jason's solitary sandpiper comment, along the same lines as my slender-billed curlew at Rutland Water last year.

I am going to continue using capital letters, but will pass on the other opinions to Alan so that he can consider them all.

Steve

 

[Katy Penland]

As far as I know, the marine mammal world doesn't have this problem of ambiguity when referring to species' names, capitalized or not. While there are, of course, species named after scientists and not just in the scientific name (Steller sea lion, Dall's porpoise, etc.), there are also just plain descriptors that are still unique enough so as not to be ambiguous (gray whale, blue whale, fin whale, etc.). The writing convention for marine mammals is NOT to capitalize common names at all (unless, as mentioned, one of the names is proper).

The problem in the bird world seems to be in the use of words like "lesser," "little," etc., where if the common names would use something unique to that species, there would be no need to capitalize them at all. E.g., "Little stint" could be "White-throated stint." "Little egret" could be "Plumed egret." ("Little egret" is a stupid name for a species that is in fact bigger than the Snowy, the species it's most confused with in NA.) "Lesser goldfinch" is another completely unnecessary epithet, since its nearest similar goldfinch is the American yet the two look nothing at all alike (either gender). "Lesser goldfinch" could easily have been named "Greenish goldfinch", which is more accurate.

All of the above with tongue only slightly in cheek. My sympathies to all you editors out there who have to struggle with such conventions. Couldn't we birders organize some kind of protest to the relevant authorities and get rid of all the ambiguous common names? Okay, tongue *firmly* in cheek there.

 

[Michael Frankis]

The writing convention for marine mammals is NOT to capitalize common names at all (unless, as mentioned, one of the names is proper)

Far from universal!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cetacea

Michael

 

[scampo]

All of the above with tongue only slightly in cheek. My sympathies to all you editors out there who have to struggle with such conventions. Couldn't we birders organize some kind of protest to the relevant authorities and get rid of all the ambiguous common names? Okay, tongue *firmly* in cheek there.

The conventions are clear - it is people who, often out of ignorance of a convention, choose to use a non-standard style. Some of those folk then insist they are "correct" - all very human, of course, and especially for those today who claim to so hate rules (well... the rules that don't suit, anyway).

The convention is that no English word takes an initial capital unless it starts a sentence, or the equivalent of a sentence, or is a proper noun (...or is the name of a genus!). All so very straightforward. Folk can do what they like but they can't on their own create a convention. It might catch on, one day in the future, that bird names should be capitalised, but I doubt it.

 

[Michael Frankis]

It might catch on, one day in the future, that bird names should be capitalised, but I doubt it.

Hi Steve,

I reckon it already has, to a very large degree. The process is driven primarily by the various field guides, which almost universally capitalise bird (and other animal & plant) names. Major authoritative works like BWP (Birds of the Western Palearctic) and HBW (Handbook of the Birds of the World) do so as well. A look through BF posts shows that the great majority of birders follow suit, too.

It would be interesting to know who started the process; I'd guess perhaps Peterson, as he started the field guide industry. Anyone got a copy of his first (1934) field guide they can check in?

Michael

 

[robinm]

The convention is that no English word takes an initial capital unless it starts a sentence, or the equivalent of a sentence, or is a proper noun (...or is the name of a genus!). All so very straightforward. Folk can do what they like but they can't on their own create a convention. It might catch on, one day in the future, that bird names should be capitalised, but I doubt it.

But when the convention has been shown to be inadequate it should change. The logic of the opposite argument is that grammar conventions are fixed: that is the tail wagging the dog. Grammar is only of value if it is an aid to clarity of expression.

I think we have demonstrated that capitalisation aids understanding and therefore is an improvement on the current convention. I shall certainly use it.

 

[scampo]

But when the convention has been shown to be inadequate it should change. The logic of the opposite argument is that grammar conventions are fixed: that is the tail wagging the dog. Grammar is only of value if it is an aid to clarity of expression.

I think we have demonstrated that capitalisation aids understanding and therefore is an improvement on the current convention. I shall certainly use it.

I see no evidence at all that it aids understanding or is inadequate. In fact I think it might even detract from understanding: it is surely useful to know when a bird has been named after a person or place, for example.

But as I have suggested, grammar is merely a way of describing the conventional ways of using language, i.e. the rules that apply to the use of a dialect called standard English. If a convention changes, then standard English and its grammar changes. Above, Michael makes a good point - maybe I am a touch out of date? But, I shall still use lower case because it looks right to my eyes.

 

[Bluetail]

I see no evidence at all that it aids understanding or is inadequate. In fact I think it might even detract from understanding: it is surely useful to know when a bird has been named after a person or place, for example.

You pays your money... At least you can usually tell when a species has been named after someone because the name is in the genitive (Cetti's Warbler). What would your solution be to the solitary sandpiper/white-rumped sandpiper ambiguity highlighted above?

 

[Bluetail]

It would be interesting to know who started the process; I'd guess perhaps Peterson, as he started the field guide industry. Anyone got a copy of his first (1934) field guide they can check in?

No such luck here. I had a copy of his first (1954?) British field guide, but that got replaced long ago. I do have the 1944 edition (first published 1930) of Kirkman & Jourdain's British Birds and that uses capitals, even for families ("Ducks"). It also employs the old-fashioned habit of hyphenating adjectives to following nouns (e.g. "Garden-Warbler"; "Whitetailed-Eagle").

 

[Edward woodwood]

can't think of any serious bird book or ornithological journal that doesn't use capitalisation - not that I'm making a value judgement here, just an observation....I leave the rest of you to argue the rights and wrongs of it all.....out of my depth when it come to genitive cases....!

 

[birdman]

What would your solution be to the solitary sandpiper/white-rumped sandpiper ambiguity highlighted above?

Whilst I have both feet planted firmly in the capitalising corner, I suppose it must be said that English (and I suspect all languages) has its (have their) grammatical ambiguities in many areas other than just naming conventions.

Context gets us out of a pickle 99% of the time, for the remaning 1%, then I guess we are forced to go a little bit around the houses.

 

[Michael Frankis]

At least you can usually tell when a species has been named after someone because the name is in the genitive (Cetti's Warbler)

Hi Jason,

Doesn't happen with birds that I know of, but with trees, Americans often drop the 's at the end, e.g. Brewer Spruce, Jeffrey Pine (rather than Brewer's Spruce, Jeffrey's Pine); Jeffrey Pine is also now fairly common in UK tree books (which usually tend to include the 's for other cases)

Michael