Michael Greenwell

So long as men worship the Caesars and Napoleons, Caesars and Napoleons will duly arise and make them miserable. – Aldous Huxley

ANIMAL COLLECTIVE NOUNS

There are some pretty unusual and funny collective nouns for animals but one that always struck me as strange is that in order to suggest wisdom, the collective noun for owls is “a parliament of owls”.

Isn’t the collective noun “A parliament of owls” actually insulting if you want to suggest that owls are intelligent?

Surely that would suggest they are merely pointless animals who enjoy preening themselves and running up huge expense bills?

For some of the other animals some of them are quite interesting too. I always like “a business of ferrets” as if you see one you have the opportunity to say “What is all this ferret business?”.

Some of them seem to have semi-sensible connotations and some bizarre

  • A flange of baboons – seems vaguely rude
  • A consortium of crabs – has a businesslike feeling (without ferrets)
  • A risk of lobsters
  • A party of peacocks
  • A mischief of rats
  • A shrewdness of apes

Some of them seem unfair

  • A murder of crows
  • A horde of gerbils
  • A sloth of bears

It should also of course be pointed out that a lot of this is usually just projecting human qualities onto animals, which is not a fair thing to do. There are some however, that have a nice onomatopoeic feel to them

  • A coffle of donkeys
  • A gaggle of geese

Finally, something I once read in a book and have since had confirmed in reality is that when you speak to or listen to zoologists they never use the plural. They go to see “gorilla” instead of “gorillas”.

Here is my video about “gorilla”

3 Responses to ANIMAL COLLECTIVE NOUNS

  1. lidia March 19, 2010 at 08:19

    The stereotypes and assumptions made by humans towards animals is unfair
    because the former project on the latter qualities and faults of the human race.
    In the same way a certain group of people might discriminate another group based on another false assumption id est race, sex, mental illness, education or social class and like all stereotypes they are wrong, because we tend to fill in the gaps in the absence of the total picture we have of people.
    Scientists classify animals based on their appeareance so do we with other human beings.
    We also judge and treat people for the qualities we attribute to them.
    One might think that because of their education scientists’ judgement should be unfalllible thus grammar should reflect this scientific detachment and represent pure facts.
    There is no thing such as pure fatcs because the latter are always related to our experience.
    On the other hand, if we do the same thing with humans, judging them solely by the behaviour and not by their nature, feelings and personality we might loose the total picture of them and make judgement mistakes exactly like scientists do with animals projecting our faults to other human beings.
    I hope I centred the problem and thankyou for giving me the opportunity to discuss this topic.

  2. bigrab March 25, 2010 at 19:55

    A charm of goldfinches is my favourite.

  3. Anonymous September 30, 2011 at 18:18

    I am curious as to where you found the “party of peacocks” referrence. I had never heard that grouping so I looked it up and found nothing to support this finding. A grouping of peacocks is normally referred to as a “muster”. Is your referrence specific to a certain region?

    see:
    http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/about/faqs/animals/names.htm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 451 other followers