My understanding is that when Humphrey and Parkes introduced their
nomenclature in 1959, the word 'juvenile
’ was in use by other ageing and
moult schemes and they wanted an unambiguous word. They used the word
‘juvenal’ as a precise word to describe a precisely defined plumage, the
first pennaceous one as others have pointed out. The Humphrey and Parkes
system is widely used in North America so ‘juvenal’ is preferred there.
Humphrey and Parkes is not widely used in Europe where ‘juvenile’ is
preferred due to its promulgation in exactly the same sense as ‘juvenal’ in
major works such as the Birds of the Western Palearctic (the European
HANZAB) and Jenni and Winkler’s (1994) magnificent Moult and Ageing of
European Passerines. Tom Tarrant was right in pointing out this
geographical difference.
Syd Curtis is on the side of the angels and I agree with him; but carrying
the oriflamme for the English language butters no parsnips. Sadly, in this
day and age, there are far too many people who write who appear to believe,
to mention just a few of the common solecisms, that nouns are there to be
verbed, adjectives to be nouned, infinitives to be split, neologisms to be
created, and the subjunctive not to exist. Dictionaries are of no help to
these hordes. The best we can hope for, Syd, is that bad writing does not
obnubilate the writers’ meaning.
In this context, it doesn’t matter if ‘juvenal’ and ‘juvenile’ are used
interchangeably as either adjectives or nouns; the meaning is clear and
David James is right. He wouldn’t have been 40 years ago!
|
