Hi Tweets,

Jim McCoy writes:

>I'd like to introduce a twist on the issue of censorship, Michael, and
suggest that you may be loving your language not wisely but too well.

A lovely expression, Jim, but mis-applied. As a lover of language, I also
like consistency and accuracy, particularly in a quasi-scientific avocation
such as birding.

>I think that "breeding plumage" is far and away the best description for
the orange-and-black of the American Redstart. That is the purpose of the
plumage, after all: to help the male attract a mate, defend a territory, or
both, for the purpose of successful breeding.

I agree that that is its purpose; however, that First Alternate males are
able to do these things without the 'breeding plumage' fatally undermines
your logic.

>The fact that it is possible to breed in another plumage is immaterial.

Sorry, to this issue it is not only germane but central; saying it is
otherwise doesn't make it otherwise.

>Almost everybody knows what is meant by the term "basketball uniform,"

That statement carries as much of an implicit assumption, certainly
incorrect in my case incidentally, as the term 'breeding plumage'. But it
may or may not be correct.

but I venture to say that Gary Payton in khakis and a bomber jacket would
clobber me one-on-one, regardless of my attire. It is clearly possible to
play basketball in something other than a "basketball uniform," but there is
still no better term to apply to what the Sonics play their games in. I
shudder to think what the authors of "definitive alternate plumage" might
call it.

Likely a 'basketball uniform' if that's what everyone else calls it in an
arbitrary choice of terms. But humans apply meaning to words arbitrarily:
would your visiting Martian anthropologist from First Principles be able to
determine what humans would use dog houses and cat houses for?

>Usage of terms like this seems to me to be a misguided attempt to remove
any possibility of ambiguity. "Definitive alternate plumage" is a rather
opaque expression, and there's not much point in sacrificing clarity for the
sake of clarity.

With respect, the Humphrey-Parkes molt terminology describes only plumage,
and is valuable tool in ageing birds and therefore identifying them,
particularly those in transitional &/or non-illustrated plumages; everything
else, 'breeding', 'winter', nuptial', etc. carries underlying assumptions of
behavior, sexual maturity, seasonality, which can but often do not apply,
but worse, may mislead. Anything which removes such ambiguity to the degree
of success of the H-P system enjoys I thought would have met applause and
acceptance rather than being characterised --quite incorrectly, I might
point out-- as "misguided". Were they on this list, Humphrey and Parkes
would likely take issue with your analysis while acknowledging your freedom
to have an opinion.

>People complain bitterly about the use of "legalese," but at least the
lawyers have good reasons for using it.

If words mean only what you choose them to mean arbitrarily, then the
consistency required in accuracy suffers. To equate accurate birding molt
and migration terminology to 'legalese' is an invidious mis-characterisation.

>I applaud efforts to get things right linguistically,

You contradict yourself: you've just spent a post saying the opposite.

>but in the absence of what I consider useful alternatives, I'm going to
keep saying "breeding plumage" when I mean "breeding plumage," and even
"fall migration" when I mean "summer-and-fall-generally-southward migration."

Difficult to do when you reject the "useful alternatives" you say, again
incorrectly, are absent. What you are actually saying is you don't want to
change. Fine with me. Don't use it you don't want to. *But* your refusal to
change does not alter my previous observation, that many birding terms in
current use require the misuse of English. What I usually hear in response
to this is one of two variations: 1. I/we don't care, and/or 2. if enough
people misuse a term it becomes right.

No. The second response is wrong; the first, beyond comment since the user
has decided to make it a matter of personal choice. That's fine, but the
ramifications are these: if the meaning of words becomes personally or
group-arbitrary, social incoherence results, and this we can see happening
in other areas; secondly, if you eschew proper usage, it becomes easier and
easier for governments and business and other special-interest groups to lie
to you. And we can see this happening, too.

You may not think this issue of proper usage of English is an important one,
but it is far more profound than a mere spat about the arbitrary and
eccentric use of English by birders. This is why I plead for more clear
language than many birders currently use. Think it through.

Michael Price A brave world, Sir,
Vancouver BC Canada full of religion, knavery, and change;
mprice at mindlink.net we shall shortly see better days.
Aphra Behn (1640-1689)