What irrates you when birding! (1 Viewer)

[Farnboro John]

If there's anything in the text to denote you are referring to a single individual, then obviously it would be bad grammar to pluralise the name. If there's anything to denote you are referring to a group of birds, eg; 'flock', 'group', 'raft', 'charm' ...etc, then pluralising the species name is redundant. Thus, it's strictly more grammatically correct to say, ''A raft of Eider Duck' than 'A raft of Eider Ducks' etc. Again, were a species has a separate pluralised name, the pluralised name should be used eg. ''A flock of Canada Geese''.

A raft of Eider Duck = an all-female flock of Eider (duck shouldn't be capitalised).

A raft of Eiders = a flock of Common Eider with a King Eider in it.

A raft of Eider = a mixed sex flock of Common Eider whether or not there is a dresseri interloper!

John

 

[borealowl47]

The complete lack of birds!

 

[Gastronaut]

A box of Mandarin orange? Surely not.

No, they come in tins.

 

[rokermartin]

When birdwatchers forget that what they're arguing about is a bird and just a bird.

Just enjoy the creature!

D.

Yes you are totally right in saying that we should all enjoy the birds and wildlife.After years of birdwatching i am still amazed how much trouble birds can cause.

 

[Guizotia]

A box of Mandarin orange? Surely not.

Well, if by "Mandarin orange" you mean the species Citrus reticulata then yes, because there is only one of them, only one species.

A box of Citrus reticulata. A box of Mandarin Orange.

"A box of Mandarin oranges" is a colloquialism. Perfectly well understood amongst those who would use the term, but just a little ambiguous more generally, and it introduces the extra onus on the speaker to get the plurality correct, was there really more than one?

My mum might not care how many Mandarin oranges there are in the box, but some birders would care a lot if you gave the impression there was one Red-breasted Flycatcher when there were four, or many when there was only one. Using the species name instead of a colloquialism is a simple exercise in disambiguation. And the species name does not have an s added.

 

[fugl]

No, they come in tins.

Not at the market I patronize, where they come in boxes like other oranges. But at least we’re agreed that it’s “they” not “it” that sometimes come in tins.

But this is getting quite remarkably silly, isn’t it?

 

[fugl]

Well, if by "Mandarin orange" you mean the species Citrus reticulata then yes, because there is only one of them, only one species.

A box of Citrus reticulata. A box of Mandarin Orange.

"A box of Mandarin oranges" is a colloquialism. Perfectly well understood amongst those who would use the term, but just a little ambiguous more generally, and it introduces the extra onus on the speaker to get the plurality correct, was there really more than one?

My mum might not care how many Mandarin oranges there are in the box, but some birders would care a lot if you gave the impression there was one Red-breasted Flycatcher when there were four, or many when there was only one. Using the species name instead of a colloquialism is a simple exercise in disambiguation. And the species name does not have an s added.

Sorry for the delayed response but I didn’t see your loony post (but loony in the best sense!) until just now. So, let the silliness continue!

Contrary to what you state, practically all English speakers who saw the phrase “box of Mandarin orange” would assume they were in the presence of a typographical error & would mentally correct “orange” to “oranges”. And far from being a “colloquialism” (?) “box of Mandarin oranges” is standard English (as indeed is “box of Citrus reticulata" for that matter), along with a million other similar locutions--bunch of bananas, bevy of bathing beauties, convocation of politic worms, etc. etc.

And “disambiguation”? On that criterion “box of Mandarin oranges” (= box containing 2 or more MOs) is clearly the winner over “box of Mandarin orange” (= box containing 1 or more MOs &/or slabs of prepared MO product &/or whatever). But “box containing Mandarin oranges & no other fruit of any kind” would be better yet (though still not completely disambiguous). “Box of Red-breasted Flycatcher”, on the other hand, would puzzle just about everybody who saw it (a nice piece of pickled flycatcher meat anyone?).

 

[Guizotia]

Sorry for the delayed response but I didn’t see your loony post (but loony in the best sense!) until just now. So, let the silliness continue!

Contrary to what you state, ...).

You can't argue with the point that if you are using the species name, you do not add an s, because there is only one species.

All equally understandable:

Today I saw Robin.
Today I saw three Robin.
Today I saw Robins.
Today I saw three Robins.

The first two use the species name correctly, the last two don't (a colloquialism - doesn't even make sense to capitalise these, because an individual Robin is not a unique entity by definition). There is nothing wrong with using the species name, and correctly avoiding pluralising it. My point is that you cannot say it is incorrect, when if anything it is more correct than any other usage.

Colloquialism = A word, phrase, or form of pronunciation that is acceptable in casual conversation but not in formal, written communication.

Formally and correctly I think you would have to write:

Today I saw Robin.
Today I saw three Robin.
Today I saw robins.
Today I saw three robins.

But to re-iterate, the simple (I think) unarguable point is that you cannot pluralise a species name, because there is only one species. It doesn't make any sense (except as a colloquialism, in which case, as I said earlier, there are no rules).

 

[fugl]

You can't argue with the point that if you are using the species name, you do not add an s, because there is only one species.

All equally understandable:

Today I saw Robin.
Today I saw three Robin.
Today I saw Robins.
Today I saw three Robins.

The first two use the species name correctly, the last two don't (a colloquialism - doesn't even make sense to capitalise these, because an individual Robin is not a unique entity by definition). There is nothing wrong with using the species name, and correctly avoiding pluralising it. My point is that you cannot say it is incorrect, when if anything it is more correct than any other usage.

Colloquialism = A word, phrase, or form of pronunciation that is acceptable in casual conversation but not in formal, written communication.

Formally and correctly I think you would have to write:

Today I saw Robin.
Today I saw three Robin.
Today I saw robins.
Today I saw three robins.

But to re-iterate, the simple (I think) unarguable point is that you cannot pluralise a species name, because there is only one species. It doesn't make any sense (except as a colloquialism, in which case, as I said earlier, there are no rules).

Come, come, if someone came up to me and said “today I saw Robin”, I would probably reply (since I don’t know anybody named Robin), “Robin who?”. I certainly wouldn’t think he was talking about a bird, nobody would. Just because a phrase or sentence is technically correct (i.e. is “grammatical” in the linguist’s sense of that term), doesn’t mean it’s good usage, and usage is king (& was what this discussion was originally about all those posts ago).

“Wisp of snipe”, “raft of scoter” & the rest are sportsman’s lingo that’s become mainstream for some reason & many people, including me, use it not because of some logical rule, but because it sounds better than “wisp of snipes” etc. Ditto for “box of oranges” & “flock of blackbirds”. “Flock of blackbird”, at least to my ear, sounds affected, while “box of orange” is simply silly. That’s just the way things are. It’s how language works.

 

[Guizotia]

Come, come, if someone came up to me and said “today I saw Robin”, I would probably reply “Robin who?”....

Ah now I understand, you're not arguing that the species name should be pluralised (that would be silly), but what you do not like is the use of the singular species name at all.

Maybe it's more popular in the UK (although I've seen the same usage in the US), but in the UK I'm sure the majority of birders would have no trouble with the phrase:

"Today I had Red-breasted Flycatcher"

And it's actually very useful to use the species name because it gives an extra level of expressiveness for example:

"Today I saw Red-breasted Flycatcher" (one or more)
"Today I saw a Red-breasted Flycatcher" (one)
"Today I saw some Red-breasted Flycatcher" (more than one)

The first phrase becomes unwieldy when using the colloquialism:

"Today I saw one or more Red-breasted flycatchers"

It's a small point, but using the species name allows you to say you saw a species without having to bring complications of numbers into it.

If I was talking to a birder I would say/write:

"I had Common Sandpiper by the beach"

If I was talking to a non-birder I would say/write:

"I saw some common sandpipers by the beach"

If you use the colloquialism you should be sure not to capitalise it, as it is not a proper noun. I think most scientific papers eschew the English species name (I assume due to standardisation only recently, and to deference to the scientific name). Here is an example of a scientific paper correctly using the colloquialism and note lack of capitalisation of "great tits" and "blue tits":

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...med_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=4

So we can all use what we prefer, species name (correctly capitalised and singular) or colloquial name (correctly lower case and singular/plural as per the number of birds present). But certainly there should be nothing "wrong" or "irritating" about using the species name.

:t:

 

[Stoggler]

Formally and correctly I think you would have to write:

Today I saw Robin.
Today I saw three Robin.
Today I saw robins.
Today I saw three robins.

But to re-iterate, the simple (I think) unarguable point is that you cannot pluralise a species name, because there is only one species. It doesn't make any sense (except as a colloquialism, in which case, as I said earlier, there are no rules).

That first one is, as fugl points out, a bloke's name. But even if you were referring to Blackbirds, it would sound very strange to say "Today I saw Blackbird" - it sounds very unnatural, or as though you are a foreigner whose native language is one that doesn't have articles (eg Russian or Polish).

The second to me doesn't sound right at all, not very natural English.

The third is fine, although most native speakers would, I think, say something like "Today I saw some robins" or use some other qualifying word.

The fourth is natural English.

the simple (I think) unarguable point is that you cannot pluralise a species name, because there is only one species

But it is very arguable. Why birds should be different to any other creature I don't know - we don't say "I saw a load of hedgehog today", or "ooh, look over there, there are a couple of lion", or "today, I saw three badger" - all of which you are using a species name. When we point out more than one of any creature, we are referring to the individuals and not the species. If one were to say to me "I saw about a dozen sandpipers", I wouldn't take that to mean that the speaker saw 12 species of sandpiper, but 12 individual sandpipers.

It doesn't make any sense (except as a colloquialism, in which case, as I said earlier, there are no rules).

Apart from the fact that that if something makes sense then it makes sense (whether it's a colloquialism or not), colloquialisms DO have rules. All language follows a grammar, regardless of its register or how high or low the dialect is; colloquial language is no different. To say there are no rules in colloquial speech suggests that it is just a meaningless jumble, which it is nothing of the sort!

 

[Stoggler]

Ah now I understand, you're not arguing that the species name should be pluralised (that would be silly), but what you do not like is the use of the singular species name at all.

Maybe it's more popular in the UK (although I've seen the same usage in the US), but in the UK I'm sure the majority of birders would have no trouble with the phrase:

"Today I had Red-breasted Flycatcher"

And it's actually very useful to use the species name because it gives an extra level of expressiveness for example:

"Today I saw Red-breasted Flycatcher" (one or more)
"Today I saw a Red-breasted Flycatcher" (one)
"Today I saw some Red-breasted Flycatcher" (more than one)

The first phrase becomes unwieldy when using the colloquialism:

"Today I saw one or more Red-breasted flycatchers"

It's a small point, but using the species name allows you to say you saw a species without having to bring complications of numbers into it.

If I was talking to a birder I would say/write:

"I had Common Sandpiper by the beach"

If I was talking to a non-birder I would say/write:

"I saw some common sandpipers by the beach"

If you use the colloquialism you should be sure not to capitalise it, as it is not a proper noun. I think most scientific papers eschew the English species name (I assume due to standardisation only recently, and to deference to the scientific name). Here is an example of a scientific paper correctly using the colloquialism and note lack of capitalisation of "great tits" and "blue tits":

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...med_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=4

So we can all use what we prefer, species name (correctly capitalised and singular) or colloquial name (correctly lower case and singular/plural as per the number of birds present). But certainly there should be nothing "wrong" or "irritating" about using the species name.

:t:

There is NOTHING colloquial whatsoever about saying "I saw some common sandpipers by the beach" - all you are doing is amending your speech/writing to suit your audience which is something everyone does day in day out, often without even realising it. I'd say that both ways of expressing the fact you saw common sandpipers is perfectly acceptable English - neither of which is colloquial at all as you are using standard English morphology, syntax AND lexicon.

 

[Guizotia]

But it is very arguable. Why birds should be different to any other creature I don't know - we don't say "I saw a load of hedgehog today", or "ooh, look over there, there are a couple of lion", or "today, I saw three badger" - all of which you are using a species name. When we point out more than one of any creature, we are referring to the individuals and not the species. If one were to say to me "I saw about a dozen sandpipers", I wouldn't take that to mean that the speaker saw 12 species of sandpiper, but 12 individual sandpipers.

At no point in the paragraph above have you used a species name, or if you have it isn't properly capitalised. A species name refers to a unique singular entity (the species), is therefore a proper noun and should be capitalised.

"I saw a dozen sandpipers" means "I saw 12 sandpipers possibly of different species" because you have not specified the species.

"I saw a dozen Common Sandpiper" means "I saw 12 sandpipers of the species Common Sandpiper"
(I take your point that this is also a colloquialism, you can't have a dozen of a singular species, so it is formally incorrect).

"I saw a dozen common sandpipers" means the same thing.

You cannot pluralise "Common Sandpiper" because it refers to a unique singular object. There cannot be more than one species "Common Sandpiper" by definition. So "Common Sandpipers" makes no sense.

But as I said above:

So we can all use what we prefer, species name (correctly capitalised and singular) or colloquial(/improper noun) name (correctly lower case and singular/plural as per the number of birds present). But certainly there should be nothing "wrong" or "irritating" about using the species name.

 

[Guizotia]

There is NOTHING colloquial whatsoever about saying "I saw some common sandpipers by the beach" - all you are doing is amending your speech/writing to suit your audience which is something everyone does day in day out, often without even realising it. I'd say that both ways of expressing the fact you saw common sandpipers is perfectly acceptable English - neither of which is colloquial at all as you are using standard English morphology, syntax AND lexicon.

Having thought it through I take your point, I'm stretching the meaning of colloquialism and also not being consistent.

To summarise:

"I had(/saw) Common Sandpiper" - correct use of proper noun species name

"I saw some common sandpipers" - correct use of improper noun to refer to members of said species

"I saw some Common Sandpiper" - grammatically incorrect use of proper noun

"I saw a Common Sandpiper" - grammatically incorrect unless you mean you saw the whole species

I think that covers it. So what irritates me is people taking issue with the first phrase, when it's just as correct as the second. I admit I was incorrect in any other argument I was making.

 

[fugl]

Having thought it through I take your point, I'm stretching the meaning of colloquialism and also not being consistent.

To summarise:

"I had(/saw) Common Sandpiper" - correct use of proper noun species name

"I saw some common sandpipers" - correct use of improper noun to refer to members of said species

"I saw some Common Sandpiper" - grammatically incorrect use of proper noun

"I saw a Common Sandpiper" - grammatically incorrect unless you mean you saw the whole species

I think that covers it. So what irritates me is people taking issue with the first phrase, when it's just as correct as the second. I admit I was incorrect in any other argument I was making.

Well, I’m glad you’re beginning to see the light [] and that unless I’m missing some nuance everybody now seems to be more or less on the same page. It’s been a long haul. For the record, however, you’ve got the origin of this discussion exactly backwards. It started with the contention way back when (post #322 ) that use of the plural was grammatically suspect in phrases such as “raft of Eider Ducks”, not the singular.

 

[paulhillion]

The weather.

Irresponsible dog walkers.

Yes it's a big lens and no I can't take photos of birds on the french coast.

People in general.

The weather.

 

[Veracocha]

When a contact lens dries up and the rest of the day is wasted. Can reserves start putting mirrors in the hides so I can do a quick change?

 

[Canadian Lady]

I'm standing still, being quiet, raising my binoculars slowly to my eyes ... and some idiots come out of nowhere, tromping through the woods, talking/yelling at the top of their lungs, breaking branches, not looking where they're walking or what they are about to step on .......... and the bird is gone! ||

 

[arniemonkey]

pedants.... see most of above

 

[Canadian Lady]

Hi Jo-Anne,

I may not say hi anymore to dog-walkers, without binoculars.
Cheers G

Irresponsible dog walkers.

People in general.

The weather.

Hi G. and Paul. It's a real "pet peeve" here (no pun intended! |;|) re: off leash dogs, especially in areas where signs are posted everywhere that they need to be on a leash! and where dogs are disturbing bird nesting areas, etc.

I'm still laughing re: People in general. :-O Some days, Yes.

Re: the weather ... How true! I'm constantly complaining about weather here - too cold, too windy, too hot, too humid, too buggy, too cloudy, too rainy, etc. :eek!:

Having said that, today here is actually sunny, blue skies and supposed to go up to +3c this afternoon. Wow, a "mild" day! |<|