Well, it looks as though I'm not the only one with a few pet peeves about
the language.... How gratifying, yes. :-)

Just a few comments in response to other postings in this thread, if you'll
bear with me, and then a couple of questions about, yes, birds. If you'd
rather not read the stuff about the King's English, just skip down about
three screenlengths to get to the bird questions.

To Greg Gillson: (1) You're right, the question mark doesn't go inside the
quotation marks, not in the particular example you used. (2) Single
quotation marks set off quoted material within a quote, which is set off
with double quotation marks, of course. But, interestingly enough, the
British frequently use single quotation marks to set off dialogue. (3) I
disagree that "further" is a proper replacement for "farther." I prefer
to differentiate the two. The latter is a variant of the former and,
through usage, has come to mean something a bit different. Basically,
farther is a comparative form of far. (4) This is a fine quote for further
reflection: "When language usage is so complicated that few can speak or
write correctly, what good is it?" Hmmm, I'm very interested to hear how
others would answer this question, but since such a thread would clutter
the bulletin board even more, would anyone like to send me your thoughts
directly?

To Jim Lyles: When you say modern usage, are you referring to usage
within the last millennium? To my mind, modern English usage refers to
the language AS, or "after Shakespeare." Anything else is, of course, BS.
(I just *couldn't* resist that -- Ooof... ouch! Okay, okay, I'll leave
punning to the masters, like Mike "Whimbrel" Smith. Uh oh, Dennis,
there's that nasty habit of making verbs out of nouns, one that I detest
myself!) It's not surprising that olde English plurals were formed in so
many different ways, given that the language borrowed (appropriated may be
more apt) so heavily from other languages. The -er plural, for example,
is Germanic. By the way, I called myself a purist in jest; others have
accused me of such, but I think it's a matter of degree.

To Gene Hunn: Oh nooooooo! What's this about bird banders secret code
names? The more I learn about birds and birding and birders, the more
discouraged I become. How does one *possibly* keep up with it all? The
rules of language usage, comparatively speaking, are a piece of cake.

To Charles Easterberg: Yes, indeed. I think TV journalists are some of
the worst offenders, but newspapers are filled with careless and
inexcusable spelling and grammar errors, too. Not only does the media
manipulate world events (anyone care to comment on this?), but they're
hastening exponentially the degradation of our language.

To David Buckley: Loved your limerick! Specificity, yes, that's it.

To Dennis: Here's a good one, "Let's stop band-aiding hunger."

Okay, enough of the frivolous stuff. {:-)

Questions to all the Tweeters:

(1) I've read several references to museum skins. Would someone please
tell me about these? I get a rather morbid vision of trays filled with
dried, feathery bits of skin with legs attached. Is this practice similar
to pinning butterflies?

(2) Does anyone know of organized, or even semi-organized, birding
daytrips within a hundred-mile radius of Seattle, where basic beginners
like myself are welcome? (And I mean beginners with lots of naive
questions.) I know about the Discovery Park walks, but I'm hoping for
something a little different. I'm particularly interested in learning
more about raptors, accipiters more specifically, and shorebirds like
Sanderlings and their cousins. And I sure would like to see a dipper.
It's one thing to peruse the field guides and to go out on solitary
searches -- if you're more experienced, that works fine -- but a much
better thing for a beginner to go with a group of birders who know what
they're looking at and listening to. Anyone planning to visit the
Montlake Fill anytime soon?

(3) This morning I heard, even through my Thermopane windows, the honking
of geese, so I rushed to the window in time to see what I can only assume
were Canada geese flying in a V formation southwest toward Ship Canal in
Fremont. I've seen geese flying in formation before, of course, and
noticed how some formations are much tighter than others, some are almost a
perfect V, and some are so haphazard you'd think Picasso was steering.
Have I been seeing these formations in various stages then? When the
lead goose decides it's time to go and the others follow, would that be
the most haphazard stage, as the geese are jockeying for position
(assuming they do such a thing) and trying to catch up? Those that fly
in a perfect V -- is that a formation that's been in the air long enough
for each goose to find its place? And then why do some birds fly in very
close formation?

(4) Speaking of flight... I've noticed how pigeons fly like pieces of
confetti on the wind (they look so unstable in the air), yet they were
the bird of choice to deliver messages hundreds, even thousands of
miles. Why? Surely homing pigeons aren't the only bird with this ability?

Thanks to everyone for your patience with this extra-long post, and
thanks, too, for your help with all these questions.

****************************************
Lisa M. Smith <subplot at u.washington.edu>
inhabitant of the Emerald City
(insert pithy social commentary here)