9 ms·

Sorry, but it is -- or at least, can be. Experts on crows do not get to decide what we call groups of crows. Not even experts on language do -- English lacks a

Sorry, but it is -- or at least, can be. Experts on crows do not get to decide what we call groups of crows. Not even experts on language do -- English lacks a governing council, so it's a murder of crows if most people agree that it's a murder of crows. This point is conceded at the end for "pack of wolves" and "pod of dolphins", which have entered common usage. Maybe the others will or won't, but it won't be up to zebra experts to decide if it's a dazzle of zebras, or simply a herd.

stan_rogers 6y ago
As long as it remains a flange of baboons, does anything else really matter?
- nicoburns 6y ago
  I'd say the squad of squids is still pretty important!
  - smichel17 6y ago
    I propose that we also enshrine the reverse -- a squid of squads.
- DonaldFisk 6y ago
  Classic comedy sketch. There's also a "whoop" of gorillas. It appears that some people think flange is the correct collective noun for baboons, as it subsequently appeared in a televised pub quiz in which someone, taught how to memorize general knowledge facts by Derren Brown, took part. https://youtu.be/l1-69AnA_To?t=900 https://youtu.be/l1-69AnA_To?t=900
  - bhrgunatha 6y ago
    I read that primatologists adopted flange as well as troop for baboons, which I hope is true, I think there's plenty of scope for whimsy in language. Sadly it seems the video of that sketch has been blocked or removed from youtube - the best I can find now is a poorly recorded audio - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgxbAjmwUus https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgxbAjmwUus
- dllthomas 6y ago
  A nest of ifdefs, and a wunch of bankers.
odyssey7 6y ago
Similarly, I've been saying for years that Pluto is still a "planet" if enough people want it to be. The cultural concept and etymological ancestry predates telescopes by thousands of years. Edit: To explain my position better, modern Science has been using an old word - which belongs to everyone - for its own purposes, which is of course fine! However, members of the general public get to do that, too. Outside Science classrooms, I've seen a lot of annoying linguistic prescriptivism explaining that a committee of scientists got into a room and made a judgement call that the person being addressed is now wrong and must change their behavior because the committee said so, which is a great, if small, example of why there is an ongoing wave of anti-intellectualism.
- dragontamer 6y ago
  Pluto is a dwarf planet now. Old definition of 'Planet' is still in play. Because Pluto doesn't meet the definition of 'Planet', it is now called a "Dwarf Planet". Ultimately, it comes down to the scientific issue of Pluto, Charon, and Eris. Its hard to make Pluto a planet without calling Eris a planet. Pluto also interacts with Neptune and Charon in unfortunate ways unlike other "proper planets", like Earth, Mars, or Mercury.
  - lmm 6y ago
    The IAU definition is absurd given the current search for exoplanets, because we will be able to detect planemos orbiting other stars long before we have any hope of being able to tell whether they've cleared their orbits. It would be much more practical - that is, useful for actually communicating empirical information - to define a planet as a planemo, Luna, Ceres and Eris included.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > The IAU definition is absurd given the current search for exoplanets, because we will be able to detect planemos orbiting other stars long before we have any hope of being able to tell whether they've cleared their orbits. The IAU definition of “planet” explicitly applies only to the solar system, and the only definition even attempted for exoplanets IIRC is to try to define a dividing line between them and brown dwarfs, effectively “exoplanets” are extrasolar planemos. > It would be much more practical - that is, useful for actually communicating empirical information - to define a planet as a planemo, Luna, Ceres and Eris included. I don't see how that follows, since having cleared an orbit is addition empirical information, and information that we are able to develop on solar system objects, if not extrasolar ones, in reasonable time. As is, e.g., whether or not an object is a natural satellite of something orbitting the sun or does so itself.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
canjobear 6y ago
Exactly: experts do not decide what a group of crows is called, regular people do. And I have never in my life heard anyone seriously refer to a murder of crows, except in the context "Hey did you know this cool piece of trivia? A group of crows is called a murder!" Furthermore if you actually used "murder of crows" in a real context people would likely be confused. Therefore, I conclude "murder of crows" is not really part of the English language. Another way of thinking about it...imagine you are writing a textbook about the English language for people learning it as a second language. You want to instruct them about how to use English in the real world. Would you tell them to refer to a group of crows as a "murder"?
- justinsaccount 6y ago
  If you write "murder of crows" a few more times, it will totally convince people it's not a thing.
- scubbo 6y ago
  > Furthermore if you actually used "murder of crows" in a real context people would likely be confused. You mix with different people than I. 90% of my friends would understand that seamlessly - and those that didn't would recognize it as a term of venery from context.
  - fsckboy 6y ago
    "term of venery" is also not a noun cluster that anybody uses.
    - smichel17 6y ago
      Counterexample: GP comment, unless scubbo is not a person.
      - scubbo 6y ago
        Gadzooks, you've found me out!
    - 6y ago
lmm 6y ago
But as the article says, people don't actually use these terms outside of bar trivia. People who actually want to communicate something in relation to a herd of zebra call them a herd.
bloak 6y ago
> it's a murder of crows if most people agree that it's a murder of crows No, that's not how it works. Each person and each group is their own authority (at least potentially, if they want to be). You're right that the majority may ignore specialist opinion, but it's equally true that specialists may ignore the majority opinion. It's not unusual for usage to diverge in that way. Take the word "allergy", for example.
kace91 6y ago
The idea of specific group names for different animals is kinda weird anyway, coming from a non-native speaker. What's the point of having so many? It doesn't provide any extra semantic meaning over just having general "herds" or "groups", since you mostly use the animal name anyway (ie. everyone will say "a murder of crows" instead of just "a murder" to avoid confusion). I realise that language is mostly not designed and that there is no specific reason, just like gramatical gender is useless for non-gendered things and still many languages have it. but I'm curious about the historical path that led to that differentiation
- rightbyte 6y ago
  I feel the point is that there is not much to learn concerning english grammar since it is so simple compared to say french or german so the teacher reach for arcane trivia to fill out the school year. Maybe it is like english spelling that seems to mainly be designed to not look childish. Murder of crows sounds very poetic compared to flock.
- nicoburns 6y ago
  I'm guessing that the origins lie in the oral storytelling tradition, where such phrases would have been used in a poetic way to entertain. And the continued use is just because people find the words amusing and enjoy using them.
kybernetikos 6y ago
Your argument works even better the other way round. Most of these terms of venery are so obscure that the only time they get used is in trivia quizzes. If, as you seem to say English is decided by usage, then the idea that there is a 'correct' term for a group of bobolinks beyond 'group' is just a fun fiction. As far as I'm concerned, you're free to describe a group of animals using whatever word conveys the experience best, and since, as you say English lacks a governing council, nobody should worry about using the 'correct' term of venery.
xRubbermaid 6y ago
I agree. In my humble opinion, the correctness of a word in a given context should be gauged on its utility in communicating a concept. Tomatoes are fruits in a botanical context, but not necessarily in a culinary context. Likewise for the planethood of Pluto, as mentioned elsewhere under this comment. To hypothesize on a more contentious issue, I think that this ties into contemporary debates on gender identity. The terms "woman" and "man" are ancient and ubiquitous, but only recently seem to be showing as inadequate in certain contexts. Universally defining these terms seems like it would elevate some of these contexts above the others, which would inevitably invite backlash from people for whom these contexts are less common.
eru 6y ago
> [...] English lacks a governing council [...] Not only that: just because a bunch of people got appointed by the French government, doesn't mean they have any real authority to tell French people how to speak. Another example from German: in that language, the experts insist that you 'drive' a hot air balloon ('einen Ballon fahren'). Normal people say that you 'fly' a balloon. ('einen Ballon fliegen'). Which one is correct depends on who you talk to. Literally, it depends on your audience. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballonfahren#Fahren_oder_fliegen https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballonfahren#Fahren_oder_flieg...

stan_rogers 6y ago

As long as it remains a flange of baboons, does anything else really matter?

nicoburns 6y ago
I'd say the squad of squids is still pretty important!
- smichel17 6y ago
  I propose that we also enshrine the reverse -- a squid of squads.
DonaldFisk 6y ago
Classic comedy sketch. There's also a "whoop" of gorillas. It appears that some people think flange is the correct collective noun for baboons, as it subsequently appeared in a televised pub quiz in which someone, taught how to memorize general knowledge facts by Derren Brown, took part. https://youtu.be/l1-69AnA_To?t=900 https://youtu.be/l1-69AnA_To?t=900
- bhrgunatha 6y ago
  I read that primatologists adopted flange as well as troop for baboons, which I hope is true, I think there's plenty of scope for whimsy in language. Sadly it seems the video of that sketch has been blocked or removed from youtube - the best I can find now is a poorly recorded audio - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgxbAjmwUus https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgxbAjmwUus
dllthomas 6y ago
A nest of ifdefs, and a wunch of bankers.

odyssey7 6y ago

Similarly, I've been saying for years that Pluto is still a "planet" if enough people want it to be. The cultural concept and etymological ancestry predates telescopes by thousands of years. Edit: To explain my position better, modern Science has been using an old word - which belongs to everyone - for its own purposes, which is of course fine! However, members of the general public get to do that, too. Outside Science classrooms, I've seen a lot of annoying linguistic prescriptivism explaining that a committee of scientists got into a room and made a judgement call that the person being addressed is now wrong and must change their behavior because the committee said so, which is a great, if small, example of why there is an ongoing wave of anti-intellectualism.

dragontamer 6y ago
Pluto is a dwarf planet now. Old definition of 'Planet' is still in play. Because Pluto doesn't meet the definition of 'Planet', it is now called a "Dwarf Planet". Ultimately, it comes down to the scientific issue of Pluto, Charon, and Eris. Its hard to make Pluto a planet without calling Eris a planet. Pluto also interacts with Neptune and Charon in unfortunate ways unlike other "proper planets", like Earth, Mars, or Mercury.
- lmm 6y ago
  The IAU definition is absurd given the current search for exoplanets, because we will be able to detect planemos orbiting other stars long before we have any hope of being able to tell whether they've cleared their orbits. It would be much more practical - that is, useful for actually communicating empirical information - to define a planet as a planemo, Luna, Ceres and Eris included.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > The IAU definition is absurd given the current search for exoplanets, because we will be able to detect planemos orbiting other stars long before we have any hope of being able to tell whether they've cleared their orbits. The IAU definition of “planet” explicitly applies only to the solar system, and the only definition even attempted for exoplanets IIRC is to try to define a dividing line between them and brown dwarfs, effectively “exoplanets” are extrasolar planemos. > It would be much more practical - that is, useful for actually communicating empirical information - to define a planet as a planemo, Luna, Ceres and Eris included. I don't see how that follows, since having cleared an orbit is addition empirical information, and information that we are able to develop on solar system objects, if not extrasolar ones, in reasonable time. As is, e.g., whether or not an object is a natural satellite of something orbitting the sun or does so itself.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

canjobear 6y ago

Exactly: experts do not decide what a group of crows is called, regular people do. And I have never in my life heard anyone seriously refer to a murder of crows, except in the context "Hey did you know this cool piece of trivia? A group of crows is called a murder!" Furthermore if you actually used "murder of crows" in a real context people would likely be confused. Therefore, I conclude "murder of crows" is not really part of the English language. Another way of thinking about it...imagine you are writing a textbook about the English language for people learning it as a second language. You want to instruct them about how to use English in the real world. Would you tell them to refer to a group of crows as a "murder"?

justinsaccount 6y ago
If you write "murder of crows" a few more times, it will totally convince people it's not a thing.
scubbo 6y ago
> Furthermore if you actually used "murder of crows" in a real context people would likely be confused. You mix with different people than I. 90% of my friends would understand that seamlessly - and those that didn't would recognize it as a term of venery from context.
- fsckboy 6y ago
  "term of venery" is also not a noun cluster that anybody uses.
  - smichel17 6y ago
    Counterexample: GP comment, unless scubbo is not a person.
    - scubbo 6y ago
      Gadzooks, you've found me out!
  - 6y ago

lmm 6y ago

But as the article says, people don't actually use these terms outside of bar trivia. People who actually want to communicate something in relation to a herd of zebra call them a herd.

bloak 6y ago

> it's a murder of crows if most people agree that it's a murder of crows No, that's not how it works. Each person and each group is their own authority (at least potentially, if they want to be). You're right that the majority may ignore specialist opinion, but it's equally true that specialists may ignore the majority opinion. It's not unusual for usage to diverge in that way. Take the word "allergy", for example.

kace91 6y ago

The idea of specific group names for different animals is kinda weird anyway, coming from a non-native speaker. What's the point of having so many? It doesn't provide any extra semantic meaning over just having general "herds" or "groups", since you mostly use the animal name anyway (ie. everyone will say "a murder of crows" instead of just "a murder" to avoid confusion). I realise that language is mostly not designed and that there is no specific reason, just like gramatical gender is useless for non-gendered things and still many languages have it. but I'm curious about the historical path that led to that differentiation

rightbyte 6y ago
I feel the point is that there is not much to learn concerning english grammar since it is so simple compared to say french or german so the teacher reach for arcane trivia to fill out the school year. Maybe it is like english spelling that seems to mainly be designed to not look childish. Murder of crows sounds very poetic compared to flock.
nicoburns 6y ago
I'm guessing that the origins lie in the oral storytelling tradition, where such phrases would have been used in a poetic way to entertain. And the continued use is just because people find the words amusing and enjoy using them.

kybernetikos 6y ago

Your argument works even better the other way round. Most of these terms of venery are so obscure that the only time they get used is in trivia quizzes. If, as you seem to say English is decided by usage, then the idea that there is a 'correct' term for a group of bobolinks beyond 'group' is just a fun fiction. As far as I'm concerned, you're free to describe a group of animals using whatever word conveys the experience best, and since, as you say English lacks a governing council, nobody should worry about using the 'correct' term of venery.

xRubbermaid 6y ago

I agree. In my humble opinion, the correctness of a word in a given context should be gauged on its utility in communicating a concept. Tomatoes are fruits in a botanical context, but not necessarily in a culinary context. Likewise for the planethood of Pluto, as mentioned elsewhere under this comment. To hypothesize on a more contentious issue, I think that this ties into contemporary debates on gender identity. The terms "woman" and "man" are ancient and ubiquitous, but only recently seem to be showing as inadequate in certain contexts. Universally defining these terms seems like it would elevate some of these contexts above the others, which would inevitably invite backlash from people for whom these contexts are less common.

eru 6y ago

> [...] English lacks a governing council [...] Not only that: just because a bunch of people got appointed by the French government, doesn't mean they have any real authority to tell French people how to speak. Another example from German: in that language, the experts insist that you 'drive' a hot air balloon ('einen Ballon fahren'). Normal people say that you 'fly' a balloon. ('einen Ballon fliegen'). Which one is correct depends on who you talk to. Literally, it depends on your audience. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballonfahren#Fahren_oder_fliegen https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballonfahren#Fahren_oder_flieg...