I hate dragging these things on, but since my intentions seem to have been misrepresented, I'll cough up one last message.

For the record: I love the language, I do care about getting things right, and I approve of the use of both technical terms and big words.

My primary point was that we shouldn't scorn the usage of vernacular, especially when such constitutes effective communication, as measured by the audience's understanding of the message.

I also was expressing a prejudice against technical terms that lack clarity. Personally, I don't think the meaning of "definitive alternative plumage" is intuitively obvious. I shouldn't complain too strenuously in the absence of an alternative scheme for plumage descriptions that is comprehensive, rigorous, and crystal-clear, but that doesn't mean I can't lament the situation, and it doesn't mean I can't resort to alternatives.

I read recently that the editor of Science magazine is quite concerned about this problem. Technical terminology among specialists can be difficult to follow for those outside the specialty, even scientists within closely-related disciplines. It is a problem when the language of science impedes the flow of scientific information to society at large.

We're not going to solve that problem here, and I'm certainly not asking anybody to "dumb down"; in fact I usually find myself on the other side of that particular issue. What I *would* like all of us to do is to try to communicate effectively in our own several ways, and not discourage others from doing the same.


Jim McCoy
Redmond, WA
jfmccoy at earthlink.net