OzBirders:
Looks like a lot of antipodean solecistic obnubilation to me! At the risk
of carrying the oriflamme for neologism, I believe the Humphrey and Parkes
system is somewhat more precise than the traditional system. Nevertheless
I'm happy as long as we understand each other.
Ross Silcock
Tabor, IA, and Cambridge, NZ
----------
> From: David James <>
> To:
> Subject: Re: birding-aus JUVENAL & JUVENILE
> Date: Thursday, April 29, 1999 7:20 PM
>
> 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)
To unsubscribe from this list, please send a message to
Include ONLY "unsubscribe birding-aus" in the message body (without the
quotes)
|
