6 ms·

These are "poetic terms", people usually use "flock of X", which is far more approachable. Using archaic terms with collective nouns is uncommon even in literar

These are "poetic terms", people usually use "flock of X", which is far more approachable. Using archaic terms with collective nouns is uncommon even in literary prose: e.g. https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=flock+of+geese%2Cgaggle+of+geese&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=1 https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=flock+of+geese... https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=flock+of+crows%2Cmurder+of+crows&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=1 https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=flock+of+crows...

rightbyte 3y ago
My pet theory is that English is so devolved (right term?) grammar wise that English teachers pick obscure stuff to study. In languages like Italian etc there is a never ending list of things to study.
- ithkuil 3y ago
  English grammar and phonology is also much more complicated than what people give it credit for. There is also a general confusion between descriptive and prescriptive rules. The same goes for other languages, like Italian. My impression is that the main difference between English and other languages is the lack of an (central) authority that can tell you what the language "is" and what it "isn't" and that gives off the feeling that there isn't much to say about the language other than random stuff arbitrary people make up. But I'm pretty sure there are tons of people who study the languages (including English!) In good faith with professionalism and sobriety. An accessible example of it is Dr. Geoff Lindsay
  - rightbyte 3y ago
    It is harder to sound important, intellectual and well educated in English, since it is easier to sound important, intellectual and well educated. In many languages there are some obscure grammar that you need to get right to sound smart. Like a filter for people with university studies. A in group out group thing. Secret club handshake. My point is that English teachers try their best to emulate that, but they don't have much to work with, so it comes down to trivia.
    - arethuza 3y ago
      I thought the standard way to sound "important, intellectual and well educated" was to use quotes and phrases from other languages? ;-)
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
    - mattlondon 3y ago
      Just using proper enunciation and avoiding slang goes a long way for English speakers.
    - CoastalCoder 3y ago
      I've lately been surprised by how many native English speakers don't understand the rules I learned as a child regarding: "I" vs. "me", and "who" vs. "whom". EDIT: Also, "me" vs. "myself". Maybe working with compilers means I'm unusually comfortable with English grammar rules?
      - briHass 3y ago
        I realized that I owe a debt to my mother for consistently correcting me as a child on I/me, they/them and other subtle rules. I don't have to think about the rule, the incorrect word just sounds 'wrong'. The downside is that I notice it easily in speeches or other talks given by otherwise intelligent individuals. If frequently repeated, it can be jarring, similar to an excess of 'um' or 'like'.
      - ithkuil 3y ago
        I noticed there has been (relatively recently) a overcorrection of "John and me" to "John and I", independently of whether the "I" is nominative or accusative. - Who saw it? - John and I! (correct) - With whom did Mary go? - With John and I! (what? why?) If the speaker doesn't really understand deeply what is the reason why you'd use "I" or "me", then all the rules around that sound arbitrary and they will make an effort to "clean up" their speech in order to not be labeled ignorant, but they will make another mistake that only truly annoying nitpickers like me will complain about, and that won't make any difference :-)
  - EdgeExplorer 3y ago
    All language is "random stuff arbitrary people make up". "Rules" are just discovered patterns in the arbitrariness of language, convenient ways to capture and communicate how most people within a certain linguistic context express a certain idea. They are point-in-time observations of an evolving natural system, sharing much more in common with aphorisms like "April showers bring May flowers" than with the law of gravity or the tax code. The English language is whatever English speakers and hearers agree it is. No linguistic "authority" can stop the inexorable evolution of language. (Language evolution has dramatically slowed, but that's because of the printing press, the radio, the television, and the Internet creating massively larger and more durable linguistic communities than ever existed before, not because of authority.) And to the original point of this thread... all of these so-called names for groups are nonsense. "A group of owls is called a parliament"... by whom? No one ever. Thus a group of owls is not called a parliament or a stare or a hoot or anything else cute. A group of owls doesn't have a name because owls don't form groups. In the unlikely event someone discovered a large group of owls together, I am quite certain they would call it a "flock", no matter what someone who thought they were clever wrote in a book. Yeah, this is a trigger for me. (: Dr. Geoff Lindsey is a great reference. Another is John McWhorter, specifically his books The Power of Babel and Words on the Move. Linguists are scientists of the natural world, not law-makers.
    - ithkuil 3y ago
      > "Rules" are just discovered patterns in the arbitrariness of language, convenient ways to capture and communicate how most people Yes, that's a the descriptive rules. They are useful for people who are interested in understanding how the language works or for people who just want to be more effective at communicating. But then there are also "prescriptive rules", which are rules that don't necessarily reflect how the language works but are rather about how the language "ought to work". These are useful for people who want to create a distinction between an in-group and out-group, or generally just want to preserve how things used to be in the golden days of when they were young (or so they think).
- School-Cotton 3y ago
  In what way is English grammar more “devolved” than Italian? It has, for example, simpler verb morphology (conjugations etc.) but more complex syntax and word order.
  - rightbyte 3y ago
    Italian seem to have more distics grammar features common with Roman, that English has lost compared to proto germanic. I mean, verb conjugation of an irregular verb fills up a sheet of paper.
goodcanadian 3y ago
I heard a story on the radio about this a while back. The conclusion was that most of these terms were never commonly used. It was mostly smart bored people making things up to amuse other smart bored people (mostly nobility as they were the only ones who had wealth and time to waste on such nonsense). That doesn't mean that none of them were used or that it isn't fun, but don't put too much meaning into it.
- whstl 3y ago
  Funny. I remember from school this being a mere curiosity and definitely not part of any the curriculum or book, although a couple teachers were awfully pedantic about it and wanted us to memorize some of those, while at the same time decrying its lack of usage, correlating with "kids these days" caring only about trendy lingo. Funny enough, this is probably the equivalent of modern "memes", but a few centuries (decades?) before...
  - Suppafly 3y ago
    Teachers wasted so much time making us memorize so much made up shit back in the day. I swear it's just because having minors occupied during the day is necessary for society to function. The actual stuff you need to learn could be squeezed into half as many years as schooling lasts, or half as many hours each day.
- School-Cotton 3y ago
  That makes sense and I (native English speaker) had always assumed it was something like that. I wish people would present this as what it is (a childish word game) rather than legitimately “part of English”, so that learners of English don’t think they have to memorize these and actually use them…
  - acjacobson 3y ago
    Some of them are, some not as much. There are certainly more obvious poetic devices like a "murder of crows" yet there are still many other collective nouns that are more "legitimately" part of English - pack, herd, pod, flock, swarm, and school for example. You don't have to know these terms as using 'group' would be understood - but they are common enough in books / documentaries.
sorokod 3y ago
"usually" is stretching it a bit - fish, cows and children do not flock. Neither do puppies.
bnralt 3y ago
I was disappointed that the article, despite it's title, never actually tells us how these group names came about. From some reading a while back, it seems that many started to be used after the 1968 book, An Exaltation of Larks, became popular. It was written by the Inside the Actors Studio host James Lipton, and includes some terms he made up himself, as far as I can tell (the back cover states " In it you will find more than 1,100 resurrected or newly minted contributions...").
- adrian_b 3y ago
  In the article it is shown that many of them were already present in one of the first printed books, in 1486: "The Book of Hawking, Hunting, and Blasing of Arms". To go further back in time would be possible only for words that would happen to be mentioned in some ancient manuscripts, which is not very likely for words designating flocks of birds.
  - Tagbert 3y ago
    Oddly enough, the Anglo-Saxon chronicles, which are among the few sources of news of events in the 600-1000 period, spends considerable ink on describing unusual actions of flocks of birds. That and ecclesiastical events. You do get the occasional account of wars, kings, land deeds, etc. but the frequent mention of birds is odd. Perhaps they were seen as portentous?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

rightbyte 3y ago

My pet theory is that English is so devolved (right term?) grammar wise that English teachers pick obscure stuff to study. In languages like Italian etc there is a never ending list of things to study.

ithkuil 3y ago
English grammar and phonology is also much more complicated than what people give it credit for. There is also a general confusion between descriptive and prescriptive rules. The same goes for other languages, like Italian. My impression is that the main difference between English and other languages is the lack of an (central) authority that can tell you what the language "is" and what it "isn't" and that gives off the feeling that there isn't much to say about the language other than random stuff arbitrary people make up. But I'm pretty sure there are tons of people who study the languages (including English!) In good faith with professionalism and sobriety. An accessible example of it is Dr. Geoff Lindsay
- rightbyte 3y ago
  It is harder to sound important, intellectual and well educated in English, since it is easier to sound important, intellectual and well educated. In many languages there are some obscure grammar that you need to get right to sound smart. Like a filter for people with university studies. A in group out group thing. Secret club handshake. My point is that English teachers try their best to emulate that, but they don't have much to work with, so it comes down to trivia.
  - arethuza 3y ago
    I thought the standard way to sound "important, intellectual and well educated" was to use quotes and phrases from other languages? ;-)
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - mattlondon 3y ago
    Just using proper enunciation and avoiding slang goes a long way for English speakers.
  - CoastalCoder 3y ago
    I've lately been surprised by how many native English speakers don't understand the rules I learned as a child regarding: "I" vs. "me", and "who" vs. "whom". EDIT: Also, "me" vs. "myself". Maybe working with compilers means I'm unusually comfortable with English grammar rules?
    - briHass 3y ago
      I realized that I owe a debt to my mother for consistently correcting me as a child on I/me, they/them and other subtle rules. I don't have to think about the rule, the incorrect word just sounds 'wrong'. The downside is that I notice it easily in speeches or other talks given by otherwise intelligent individuals. If frequently repeated, it can be jarring, similar to an excess of 'um' or 'like'.
    - ithkuil 3y ago
      I noticed there has been (relatively recently) a overcorrection of "John and me" to "John and I", independently of whether the "I" is nominative or accusative. - Who saw it? - John and I! (correct) - With whom did Mary go? - With John and I! (what? why?) If the speaker doesn't really understand deeply what is the reason why you'd use "I" or "me", then all the rules around that sound arbitrary and they will make an effort to "clean up" their speech in order to not be labeled ignorant, but they will make another mistake that only truly annoying nitpickers like me will complain about, and that won't make any difference :-)
- EdgeExplorer 3y ago
  All language is "random stuff arbitrary people make up". "Rules" are just discovered patterns in the arbitrariness of language, convenient ways to capture and communicate how most people within a certain linguistic context express a certain idea. They are point-in-time observations of an evolving natural system, sharing much more in common with aphorisms like "April showers bring May flowers" than with the law of gravity or the tax code. The English language is whatever English speakers and hearers agree it is. No linguistic "authority" can stop the inexorable evolution of language. (Language evolution has dramatically slowed, but that's because of the printing press, the radio, the television, and the Internet creating massively larger and more durable linguistic communities than ever existed before, not because of authority.) And to the original point of this thread... all of these so-called names for groups are nonsense. "A group of owls is called a parliament"... by whom? No one ever. Thus a group of owls is not called a parliament or a stare or a hoot or anything else cute. A group of owls doesn't have a name because owls don't form groups. In the unlikely event someone discovered a large group of owls together, I am quite certain they would call it a "flock", no matter what someone who thought they were clever wrote in a book. Yeah, this is a trigger for me. (: Dr. Geoff Lindsey is a great reference. Another is John McWhorter, specifically his books The Power of Babel and Words on the Move. Linguists are scientists of the natural world, not law-makers.
  - ithkuil 3y ago
    > "Rules" are just discovered patterns in the arbitrariness of language, convenient ways to capture and communicate how most people Yes, that's a the descriptive rules. They are useful for people who are interested in understanding how the language works or for people who just want to be more effective at communicating. But then there are also "prescriptive rules", which are rules that don't necessarily reflect how the language works but are rather about how the language "ought to work". These are useful for people who want to create a distinction between an in-group and out-group, or generally just want to preserve how things used to be in the golden days of when they were young (or so they think).
School-Cotton 3y ago
In what way is English grammar more “devolved” than Italian? It has, for example, simpler verb morphology (conjugations etc.) but more complex syntax and word order.
- rightbyte 3y ago
  Italian seem to have more distics grammar features common with Roman, that English has lost compared to proto germanic. I mean, verb conjugation of an irregular verb fills up a sheet of paper.

goodcanadian 3y ago

I heard a story on the radio about this a while back. The conclusion was that most of these terms were never commonly used. It was mostly smart bored people making things up to amuse other smart bored people (mostly nobility as they were the only ones who had wealth and time to waste on such nonsense). That doesn't mean that none of them were used or that it isn't fun, but don't put too much meaning into it.

whstl 3y ago
Funny. I remember from school this being a mere curiosity and definitely not part of any the curriculum or book, although a couple teachers were awfully pedantic about it and wanted us to memorize some of those, while at the same time decrying its lack of usage, correlating with "kids these days" caring only about trendy lingo. Funny enough, this is probably the equivalent of modern "memes", but a few centuries (decades?) before...
- Suppafly 3y ago
  Teachers wasted so much time making us memorize so much made up shit back in the day. I swear it's just because having minors occupied during the day is necessary for society to function. The actual stuff you need to learn could be squeezed into half as many years as schooling lasts, or half as many hours each day.
School-Cotton 3y ago
That makes sense and I (native English speaker) had always assumed it was something like that. I wish people would present this as what it is (a childish word game) rather than legitimately “part of English”, so that learners of English don’t think they have to memorize these and actually use them…
- acjacobson 3y ago
  Some of them are, some not as much. There are certainly more obvious poetic devices like a "murder of crows" yet there are still many other collective nouns that are more "legitimately" part of English - pack, herd, pod, flock, swarm, and school for example. You don't have to know these terms as using 'group' would be understood - but they are common enough in books / documentaries.

sorokod 3y ago

"usually" is stretching it a bit - fish, cows and children do not flock. Neither do puppies.

bnralt 3y ago

I was disappointed that the article, despite it's title, never actually tells us how these group names came about. From some reading a while back, it seems that many started to be used after the 1968 book, An Exaltation of Larks, became popular. It was written by the Inside the Actors Studio host James Lipton, and includes some terms he made up himself, as far as I can tell (the back cover states " In it you will find more than 1,100 resurrected or newly minted contributions...").

adrian_b 3y ago
In the article it is shown that many of them were already present in one of the first printed books, in 1486: "The Book of Hawking, Hunting, and Blasing of Arms". To go further back in time would be possible only for words that would happen to be mentioned in some ancient manuscripts, which is not very likely for words designating flocks of birds.
- Tagbert 3y ago
  Oddly enough, the Anglo-Saxon chronicles, which are among the few sources of news of events in the 600-1000 period, spends considerable ink on describing unusual actions of flocks of birds. That and ecclesiastical events. You do get the occasional account of wars, kings, land deeds, etc. but the frequent mention of birds is odd. Perhaps they were seen as portentous?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]