Re: Why Stelle r's Jay is wrong. It should be Steller J ay.=?utf-8?Q?=E2=80=8F?=

>
>
> Hello, Birders.
>
>
>
> Consider all of the following:
>
>
>
> 1. Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building
>
> 2. Curtis Institute of Music
>
> 3. Turner Field
>
>
>
> 4. Obama administration
>
> 5. Messersmith case
>
> 6. Burger court
>
>
>
> 7. Johnny Carson show
>
> 8. Aunt Jemima syrup
>
> 9. Disney Channel
>
>
>
> 10. Erlenmeyer flask
>
> 11. Doppler effect
>
> 12. Fourier transform
>
>
>
> 13. Heimlich maneuver
>
> 14. Golgi apparatus
>
> 15. Salk vaccine
>
>
>
> 16. Martin Luther King Boulevard
>
> 17. Roberto Clemente Drive
>
> 18. Jerry Tarkanian Way
>
>
>
> 19. Lincoln County
>
> 20. Jefferson Township
>
> 21. Washington Borough
>
>
>
> All of the preceding are named for some person. My guess is, all of the
> preceding look basically "normal" to you. Now, how about the
> following:
>
>
> 22. Dall sheep
>
> 23. Douglas squirrel
>
> 24. Weddell seal
>
>
>
> And now for the kicker:
>
>
>
> 25. Steller's Jay
>
>
>
> Why? Why do we do that? Why do we write Steller's Jay, with an
> apostrophe-s? Why isn't it Steller Jay? After all, we don't write or say
> Turner's Field, or Doppler's effect, or Jefferson's Township. Well, the
> reason--the only reason--is because the American Ornithologists' Union
> (AOU) says so.
>
>
> The AOU, right from the get-go, in the late 19th century, has told us to
> write Steller's Jay, Wilson's Warbler, Botteri's Sparrow, and so forth. But
> why? How come? Why has the AOU always insisted on an apostrophe-s?
>
>
> In modern English, the apostrope-s is used to denote possession, as in
> Obama's shoes, or Erlenmeyer's house, or Salk's notebook. If something
> *belongs to* someone, then you use the apostrophe-s. But if something is
> *named for* someone, you do not. Thus: "Steller's shotgun" or
> "Steller's horse," to denote Steller's possession of those
> things. But it should be Steller Jay and Steller Sea-Eagle, to denote that
> those things have been named after Steller.
>
>
> Okay, the AOU is "wrong." It always has been. But the question
> remains: Why? Why does the AOU do it that way?
>
>
> My hypothesis is it has to do with the noble old tradition of trying to
> "Latinize" English. In Latin, one commemorates someone with the
> genitive, or possessive, case. That's totally fine. That's how you do it in
> Latin. But, and this is the critical point, That's *not* how you do it in
> English.
>
>
> Those 19th-century (and 18th-century) taxonomists may well have been fine
> Latinists. (See Rick Wright's fascinating analysis and commentary, Birding,
> April 2003 issue, pp. 116-117.) But the problem here isn't one of knowing
> good Latin. The problem is one of translation. I submit that it is an
> error, in the present case, to translate the Latin genitive into an English
> possessive.
>
>
> A key fallacy in translation is that one ought to preserve the original.
> Wrong! The essential goal of a skilled translator is to get the point
> across in a different language.
>
>
> Consider the Spanish preposition "de," which is used in a very
> general way to denote association. The best English translation is
> "of." For example: Canto de la Tierra (Song of the Earth) or Rio
> de Luz (River of Light). Fine. That works. Also, you'd be okay in
> translating "Evangelio de Juan" as "Gospel of John."
> But let's say you have "el libro de Juan." A competent translator
> would render that as "Juan's book"; a more-literal rendering,
> "the book of Juan," just isn't good English. Or how about
> "una muchacha de ocho años"? I'd say "an
> eight-year-old girl" is a better translation than the more-literal
> "girl of eight years." And only a truly incompetent translator
> would render "Salida de Emergencia" as "Exit of
> Emergency"; of course, it should be "Emergency Exit."
>
>
> And that, in a nutshell, is what has happened, I believe, with formulations
> such as "Steller's Jay." Yes, the Latin name of the species is
> "stelleri." But it's not necessarily correct--and I submit it's
> simply wrong--to "translate" that into English as
> "Steller's." The proper, and properly understood, English should
> be Steller, as in Steller Jay.
>
>
> To some extent, we birders already know these things. We unselfconsciously,
> and quite logically, say and write things like, "I heard a few
> thrushes migrating last night...a half dozen Hermits, a dozen Swainson's,
> and a late Veery." We certainly don't say (or write)
> "Swainson'ses." (As in, "keeping up with the Joneses.) And
> here's a more telling example: "We saw some nice raptors...2 Harlan's,
> 2 Roughies, 3 Coops, and a Sharpie." Note: The bird is a Coop. Not a
> Coop's. And the plural is Coops. Not Coop's or Coop'ses.
>
>
> Formulations like Cooper's Hawk, Swainson's Thrush, and Steller's Jay are
> affected and antiquated. They're also wrong. Let's employ proper, and
> properly understood, English when we're writing and talking about birds. We
> want to share our passion for birding with as many folks as possible, don't
> we? We want to reach out to beginners, don't we? We want our voice to be
> heard, don't we? We want to make a difference, don't we? Then let's do it
> in a way that makes us look smart and relevant, not fussy and antiquated.
>
>
> Alright, I'm outta here, for a stroll around my local patch. I hope the
> Cooper Hawk is still around!
>
>
> -------------------------------
>
>
>
> Ted Floyd
>
> Editor, Birding
>
>
>
> Follow Birding magazine on Twitter: http://twitter.com/BirdingMagazine
>
>
> -------------------------------                                        
>
> _________________________________________________________________
>
> Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free.
>
> http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469229/direct/01/
>