The first
question Mr. Nicholas Lund asks is whether anyone actually uses these terms,
because he contends that he has never heard them used. I've not going to sit
here and argue that everyone uses all the plural animal nouns all the time. However, if the author has never
heard any grouping words for animals used aside from flock and herd, I would say
he hasn't been talking to enough people in the world. I've heard plenty of them
used by real people in all seriousness including the following terms:
· Bats:
colony
· Bees: hive, swarm
· Camels: caravan, train, or herd
· Crows: murder
·
Dogs: litter (of puppies), pack (in the wild),
· Dolphins: pod
·
Geese: gaggle
· Lions: pride
· Porpoises: pod, school
· Prairie dogs: colonies
· Rabbits: colony, nest, warren
· Whales: pod
· Wolves: pack
· Vipers: nest
Now, I agree that are some incredibly odd terms for specific animals are not used in normal
parlance. I admit that I've never heard someone refer to a collective group of
bears as a sleuth or rhinos as a stubbornness. But then, I also don't live in a
place where I run into wild groups of rhinos. If I was late to work because a
group of rhinos parked themselves in the road I could reasonably call them a
stubbornness because it would describe the belligerent way that they
collectively made my morning more difficult. Luckily, that has never happened
to me in the Southwestern United States. But I have personally referred to bees
as a hive and swarm, and geese as a gaggle, and crows as a murder, and I've
heard plenty of other people do so.
Mr. Lund tries to argue that scientists
don't use them and therefore nobody really does. That's simply not an accurate
sampling of the population. It might prove that scientists don't use those terms
but it doesn't answer his posed question:
Are there actual people in the real
world who use special group names for certain species? Or is there just one
nerd in an office somewhere with a field guide in one hand and a dictionary in
the other, matching each species with a cute little term and laughing
maniacally when the world collectively coos over the pairing?
After he proves
that scientists don't use terms of venery he claims that they exist only in the
"world of bar trivia," where, "without real-world
applications" they are "just morsels of linguistic candy rotting
cavities into our scientific integrity". I argue that trivia is not really the point
of these group names. I don't argue that the terms have no scientific value. My
problem is in the vehemence with which he believes the words should be removed
from the English language. He proposed we replace them with bland but more scientific words like group.
 |
| No doubt calling this crow a visitor or a friend is also a transgression against the purity of scientific integrity but I like the photographer's point of view - "Crow visitor" by Fernettes is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0 |
Would you really say... "Oh look at this group of
jellyfish on the beach"? You'd probably at least say this whole group, or, look
at all of these jellyfish or, look there's thousands of jellyfish! Because
using the word group alone is too boring and entirely lacking in descriptive
power. If thousands of jellyfish were surrounding a boat that I happened to be
floating in, and they were slapping into the sides with every swell of water
that lapped against the edges of my boat, I would probably call them a smack in
that case too. I'd probably lean over the edge watch them smack into the boat,
look further out and see an endless flotilla of them and say "Oh my God
there's a smack of jellyfish out here, look!" Maybe it would come out
slightly differently, but I would bet you substantial money that I would not
say "look a GROUP of jellyfish!"
Language is sometimes about tone and
sometimes about feeling. And you can't convey those things with the word group. I'm not arguing that some of these other words, these terms of venery, have any
scientific value. I merely believe that they have literary and poetic value.
 |
| Could you really capture the mood and tone of this moment by describing it as a group of three crows on a roof? I contend that you cannot. - "Cathedral of Our Lady" by marikoen is licensed under CC BY-ND 2.0 |
I
personally have not heard people say "a group of crows". I admit that
I'm unusual and have unusual preferences, but it would stand out to me if
people said group, because it would not be my preferred word for this context. I don't hear people use this. I've heard them use an exact
count of the crows or the word flock, but honestly, I've heard many, many
people refer to crows as a murder. Now, you could use the work flock, or group,
sure. It just seems to me that most people don't do so, because it doesn't convey as
much feeling.
 |
| Is this just a crow or is this a solitary crow? Words matter even if there is no scientific value to that distinction. - "as the crow flies" by Simon Clarke is licensed under CC BY-ND 4.0 |
Let me illustrate my point by telling you about the same morning in two different ways. Firstly, using boring, strictly factual language and then again using poetic language Mr. Lund would disapprove of.
Version A.
I drove to work and I arrived about a
minute late and there was this group of crows in my parking spot. I was briefly
worried about hitting them while I parked, but I was also late. They scattered.
Then I went inside and remembered it was my 90 day review.
Version B.
I drove
to work this morning and arrived about a minute late. As I pulled into the
parking lot there was a murder of crows waiting for me in my normal spot. I was
ONLY a minute late but I was afraid to run over them, and then again, I was
already late, so I hesitated briefly. I had this ominous feeling as their dark
wings took to the sky and then I remembered as I looked over my shoulder at
them on the way into the building that today was my 90 day review.
Which
version of my story conveys more of my internal emotional goings on? The one
where I say group of crows and leave it to strict facts? There is nothing
scientific about either story, but the story that contains the offensive
"linguistic candy rotting cavities into our scientific integrity" is
actually a much better story about my morning and how I felt about it. And
despite his assertions, my poetic story has done no damage to any actual
scientific integrity.
 |
| If I called this a flurry of crows you would know what I meant, even if it's not the accepted collective noun for crows. - "as the crow flies" by Simon Clarke is licensed under CC BY-ND 4.0 |
Another of his points is that these terms, being that they only exist in the world of bar trivia, could easily be replaced with more interesting and scientific facts. He is right in a way. Trivia could be more interesting and scientific (such as the shape of wombat poop). However, the way that I use the terms for different animals is not in a field of trivia, it's in how I actually describe things in my world. And I would personally much rather have a poetic discussion about the things I actually see and experience in the world than a factual one about the shape of wombat fecal matter, regardless of how unusual it may be. Sorry, Mr. Lund, I think replacing venery with fecal facts is simply not the way to go.
Then there is the point in which he mentions that "I just don’t see enough
groups of other animals to need more words". Mr. Lund, I am ashamed. You
don't see any other animals than cows and birds? You seriously don't need any
other words than herd and flock? Scientist, lifelong birder, or not, if he doesn't see enough groups of other
animals to need other words than flock, herd, and group, I suggest he doesn't
see enough animals. Or perhaps he does and he is simply not using English in an
interesting enough way. Does he call dogs in a plural form a herd or a group? Does he refer to swarms of bees as groups? He can continue doing as he chooses of course. But I think his language is
lacking if he uses strictly and only the words, flock, herd and group for all
animals that he sees or talks about.
He concedes that "certain terms of venery have made the transition from factoid to actual phrase. Pod of whales. Troop of monkeys. Gaggle of geese. Pack of wolves." That almost makes this article worse for me. It seems to me that Mr. Lund is saying, you can use terms that don't irritate me, but if it irritates me I will say that you are morally corrupting our scientific integrity with your choice of words. Do tell, Mr. Lund, when does something gain enough strength in popularity for you to deem it an "actual phrase" and allow us, in your great magnanimity to use it as part of the English language?
I will now concede that I personally think some of the terms are silly. I do not see why anyone would refer to a roiling mass of rattlesnakes as a rhumba, I think it disgraces the dance and does not adequately convey the horror of such a mass of snakes. I might even ask someone why they thought that was a good word for it, after I'd run a sufficiently safe distance from said coil of snakes. But I think it's more a transgression against poetry than it is against science. I don't need to know or have ever heard anyone refer to rattlesnakes as a rhumba to know that they are referring to a plurality of snakes I don't want to be near. That's the thing about terms of venery, they mostly denote collective nouns rather than a single rattlesnake. And I don't have to know or agree with the term to understand what is being conveyed.
He concedes that "certain terms of venery have made the transition from factoid to actual phrase. Pod of whales. Troop of monkeys. Gaggle of geese. Pack of wolves." That almost makes this article worse for me. It seems to me that Mr. Lund is saying, you can use terms that don't irritate me, but if it irritates me I will say that you are morally corrupting our scientific integrity with your choice of words. Do tell, Mr. Lund, when does something gain enough strength in popularity for you to deem it an "actual phrase" and allow us, in your great magnanimity to use it as part of the English language?
I will now concede that I personally think some of the terms are silly. I do not see why anyone would refer to a roiling mass of rattlesnakes as a rhumba, I think it disgraces the dance and does not adequately convey the horror of such a mass of snakes. I might even ask someone why they thought that was a good word for it, after I'd run a sufficiently safe distance from said coil of snakes. But I think it's more a transgression against poetry than it is against science. I don't need to know or have ever heard anyone refer to rattlesnakes as a rhumba to know that they are referring to a plurality of snakes I don't want to be near. That's the thing about terms of venery, they mostly denote collective nouns rather than a single rattlesnake. And I don't have to know or agree with the term to understand what is being conveyed.
 |
| "Caw!" by molajen is licensed under CC BY 2.0 |
All of this aside, I clearly disagree with Mr. Lund, but he may do as he likes. He is entitled to his opinions of the proper way to use English terms, however much I disagree with them.
However, he continues with his article and he takes it one step too far for me.
At the end of his article he
is clearly worked up about the sort of people who try to rot our collective
scientific integrity with such linguistic candy. He says that the next
time someone tells him a term of venery he will respond with:
“Did you know
anyone who believes that is part of a ‘gaggle of gullibles’?"
Telling
people they are gullible for using a term you don't like is technically neither true nor nice. Mr. Lund could say they are foolish, or perhaps
sentimental, but he doesn't appear to have the aptitude for understanding how
to use words that he deems too whimsical. Or, for that matter, patience for
anyone who is not on his wavelength of morally upstanding scientific integrity.
Don't get me wrong, I am by no means perfect. I have my particular veiwpoints that I defend with more vehemence than necessary. I will own that there are words I simply hate. I am fairly certain, however, that I have never told anyone they are gullible for using a real word that I hate. I just cringe a little and try to move on.
People who use words and phrases you don't like are not gullible. They would only be gullible, Mr. Lund, if they believed you when and if you responded to them with made up terms of venery, as you did at the start of your article, specifically to mock them. I'm afraid, however, that to deliberately mislead them and mock them for things that are not false, simply not to your liking, would cost you your moral high ground, your scientific integrity, and lastly, Sir, I'm afraid, that if you do that intentionally, you're just being an ass. A solitary one.
Don't get me wrong, I am by no means perfect. I have my particular veiwpoints that I defend with more vehemence than necessary. I will own that there are words I simply hate. I am fairly certain, however, that I have never told anyone they are gullible for using a real word that I hate. I just cringe a little and try to move on.
People who use words and phrases you don't like are not gullible. They would only be gullible, Mr. Lund, if they believed you when and if you responded to them with made up terms of venery, as you did at the start of your article, specifically to mock them. I'm afraid, however, that to deliberately mislead them and mock them for things that are not false, simply not to your liking, would cost you your moral high ground, your scientific integrity, and lastly, Sir, I'm afraid, that if you do that intentionally, you're just being an ass. A solitary one.
 |
| A rather solitary, moody-looking fellow. I think he is pontificating on some point dear to his heart. - "Gangsta Crow" by www.charlesthompsonphotography.com is licensed under CC BY 2.0 |
