At 17:29 24/04/99 +1000, Ken Rogers wrote:
loads of drivel
Ken,
Very lucianic but not especially elucid. I see you haven't kicked your old
habit: baffle 'em with taurine dust. Thus, as a lubber fiend, I will tidy
up your mess and offer you a little more cud for your digestive
contemplation.
Humphrey & Parkes 1959 (Auk 76: 1-31) use the word "juvenal" as an
adjective throughout (ie "juvenal plumage"), though admittedly with a
little inconnsistency. Nevertheless, on p. 15 they "advocate the retention
of the familair term juvenal plumage for the first covering of true feathers".
The American use of "juvenal" as opposed to "juvenile" pre-dates 1959, but
its acceptance as a noun must post-date 1959, if not 1999.
This member of the grammatically impaired hordes remains unconvinced that
there is any difference between these two words other than their spelling
and the geographical variation in their application. Notwithstanding the
opinion of that most proggresive Macquarie Dictionary, there is no point in
having a noun that specifically refers to a single plumage of all birds
when all the other plumages of birds are referred to by terms that combine
the noun "plumage" proceeded by a qualifying adjective (such as breeding,
alternate, nuptial etc.). More importantantly, how many birders are on the
editorial panel of the Macquarie?
.................................................................
>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!
>
David James
PO BOX 5225
Townsville Mail Centre,
Qld 4810, Australia
___________________________
To unsubscribe from this list, please send a message to
Include ONLY "unsubscribe birding-aus" in the message body (without the
quotes)
|
