re terminal *s*, lack thereof:

In some cases it may be shorthand or "telegraphic" in intention, as might
be appropriate in making a list: "88 Sharp-tailed Sandpiper" is shorthand
for "88 [individuals of] Sharp-tailed Sandpiper." This form might also be
adopted in a terse narrative enumerating a day's sightings.


In more conversational use ("I say -- look at all those Sharp-tailed
Sandpiper"), it may be another manifestation of the peculiar Anglophilia
(e.g., "harbour," "fibre," "an historical") that some Americans indulge in
[i.e., US natives who do this as pure affectation]. There are many
species for which neglecting the terminal *s* is considered an acceptable
alternative when forming the plural (snipe, quail, e.g.); these tend to be
species that are/were hunted. Dropping the *s* more generally may thus be
an attempt to evoke the fabled British Love of the Hunt...
--------------

On an actual *bird* topic, will anyone venture an estimate of what
proportion of the golden plovers on our part of the west coast are
Americans, how many are Pacifics, and how many are unidentifiable because
of overlap? I see relatively few juvs that are pale enough and
long-winged enough, etc., for me to be comfortable calling them American,
but how many of the darker, brighter ones can really be safely IDed as
Pacific?


David Wright | chilly now, end of summer
dwright at u.washington.edu | no more shiny hot nights
| -- J. Mitchell

Museum Informatics wrote:

>>Date: Mon, 10 Oct 94 10:03:34 -0700
>>From: Eugene Hunn <hunn at u.washington.edu>
>
>>On another issue of language: I have noticed a tendency (which I find

>>slightly irritating) to leave of the "-s" in pluralizing bird names
>>.. What do you all think?
>
>What!???!! Our American English is evolving (devolving? revolving?) right
>under this anthropologist's linguistic nose (huh?), and he's "irritated"?
>
>I say "Five lash for you!"
>Peter