Brent echoes my sentiments exactly. There is nothing at all wrong with
"relocating" a bird "in", "at", "under" or "beside". None of these implies
relocation unless the word "to" is used, except through someone's
misunderstanding.

What's next, people thinking a "siting" of a bird means it was given a
traffic ticket?


Calvin Gehlen
calvin at gobirding.com
Vancouver, BC

-----Original Message-----
From: Brenton M. Ripley [SMTP:brentr at hawlaw.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 1999 9:07 AM
To: Hummer at isomedia.com; Tweeters
Subject: Re: A Question Of Syntax

I think is has to do with the use of prepositions. "Relocated IN" or "AT"
to me does not imply capture and removal (as was stated in the Kestrel
report), but simply re-finding. "Relocated TO" clearly implies cature and
removal (as in the gnatcather example).

I think its perfetly correct to use the phrase "relocated in or at" to
describe fining a bird that had been lost.
I didn't think twice about it.

Simply my two cents.

Brent Ripley
Kennewick, WA
mailto: brentr at hawlaw.com