A
Goosander or a goosander?
by Dr. David Shirt
English
is one of the most difficult languages. Too many exceptions
to rules, too many anomalies, too many words that
are illogical, far too many pronunciations that make
no sense whatever. Be thankful you’re not one
of those foreigner thingies. It is also is by far
and away the richest language, with upwards of 600,000
words, so it’s somewhat surprising that there
is no word to describe what so many feel. A love of
nature, a love of science, anything and everything
to do with the natural world, a sense that is difficult
to describe but is felt on every occasion that we
see a certain bird, the first daffodil of the year,
a, a fossil, autumn leafs, cluster of galaxies, a
moth.
Help
is at hand. In 1984 a word was introduced ‘biophilia’,
by an American, Edward Wilson, who defined the word
as ‘the connections that human beings subconsciously
seek with the rest of life’. His reasoning is
that we have coexisted with nature since life began,
consequently we must have an innate empathy with everything
else in the natural world, a longing to be associated
with it. This word must eventually be accepted by
dictionaries, and he also offers the reverse of the
word as being ‘biophobia’. Imagine, such
an affliction? If anyone actually suffers with this,
they should be punished severely then dispatched to
The Priory for severe treatment.
-----------------------------
Is it a Goosander or a goosander? A named bird is
a common noun, so should not be awarded capitals,
Hayling Island is a proper noun, so does have capital
letters. It is just so. So is it a misnomer to call
it a Goosander or a Heron?

Which do you prefer?
‘Birdwatch’
and ‘Birdwatching’ magazines use capitals,
the RSPB magazine insists on non-capitals. So which
is correct, but more importantly, does it matter?
The renowned French grammarian, Dominique Bonhours,
whispered these words on his deathbed, as he gazed
upon his loved ones; ‘’I am about to
- or I am going to - die - either expression
is used.’’ (This quote with thanks to
Bill Bryson)
I
have in the past been indifferent to this ruling,
provided articles were consistent. If an article read,
‘Our garden is frequented by Bramblings and
4 or 5 blackbirds’, the blackbirds could probably
sue if put in touch with a good compensation lawyer.
The
internet must also change things. We may now receive
several emails every day. Some of these are well written,
others amusing or interesting, but often, especially
after being away for a while, we desire to simply
know WHAT BIRDS did they see? Therefore, capitals
are essential; capitals make the SUBJECT MATTER stand
out.
Opinions
of colleagues vary 50-50. Articles on this website
actually reflect this and have been left according
to the preference of the writer. In an attempt to
show that my years around the seat of learning in
Oxford were not entirely wasted, Dr David Shirt, Associate
Editor of the Oxford English Dictionary, has given
the following opinion, again exclusive to this website.
There can be no greater authority.
For
those interested, why do we sometimes say we saw -
600 Dunlin, whereas we should say - 600 Dunlins,
and we never say we saw 6 Blackbird?
---------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The
question of whether to use capitals for the English
names of animals and plants is one that is frequently
debated, and I refer you to the enclosed discussion
document that I wrote on the subject about six years
ago. I am a writer and speaker on wildlife myself
and the notes were in response to a query by the RSPB,
whose statement is appended. The current situation
is much as it was in 1999, i.e. capitals are widely
used by birdwatchers but less consistently by other
naturalists.
Our
grammatical expert tells me that such names are indeed
common nouns, and our advice (for non-specialist contexts)
is that it is better not to capitalize a name unless
one of the words is itself a proper noun, e.g. Savi’s
warbler. However, there is no technical ‘right’
and ‘wrong’ here: most specialist periodicals
have established an obligatory house style, and customary
usage in specialized but less formal situation usually
follows the style of relevant publications. The most
important rule is to be consistent in the use of the
chosen style.
With
regard to plurals, the ‘singular’ form
originated in the hunting and shooting field and is
often known as the ‘hunting plural’. In
keeping with its origins, this form is usual for animals
that have traditionally been the quarry of sportsmen
(or ones that flock in a similar way), and it would
sound odd to speak of ‘a herd of antelopes’
or ‘a flock of mallards’. The –s
plural in these cases does, however, have a specific
use: the phrase ‘there are four teals in Asia’
is referring to the number of different kinds of teal.
There
seems to be a grey area where both plural forms are
acceptable, depending on context. I agree that one
would normally speak of ‘six blackbirds’,
but I have recently found myself speaking of ‘a
flock of 600 fieldfare’: it seems to be a simple
matter of euphony appropriate to the numbers involved!
Feel
free to quote from the above, though this is more
a discussion of preferred options than one of rules.
Dr David B. Shirt
Associate Editor (Science)
Oxford English Dictionary
-------------------------------------
---------------------------------------
So,
it does not really matter, but be consistent.
The articles on this website have been left according
to the writer’s preference. Maybe with books
it is better not to use capitals, you do not want
words jumping out at you, with reference books, magazines
and the internet, I believe it preferable to use capitals.
Back
to Articles