Dear Tweeters,

Calvin Gehlen's note (attached) underlines one of my pet peeves:
the frequent misuse of the term "siting", when "sighting" is what is
really meant. As Nick Pharris pointed out, "siting" means "to place on
a site or in position". Surely, when one reports a list of birds one
has sighted, one did not actually put them there!! :-) (At least, I
hope not!)
As far as the objections to the term "relocated", how about
"rediscovered" instead?

Wayne C. Weber
Kamloops, B.C.
wayne_weber at bc.sympatico.ca


-----Original Message-----
From: Calvin Gehlen <calvin at inisystems.com>
To: 'tweeters at u.washington.edu' <tweeters at u.washington.edu>
Date: Wednesday, November 03, 1999 9:38 AM
Subject: Re: A Question of Syntax


>
>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
>