• Lemminary@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 days ago

    I love you, English as my second language, but you cray cray and I ain’t doing all of that.

      • davidgro@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 days ago

        About the only one of those I use (besides the regular ones like ‘a flock of birds’) is ‘a murder of crows’. Usually in a statement like “We just witnessed a murder.”

        • Skua@kbin.earth
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          8 days ago

          I think I generally operate on “it flies = flock”, “it swims = shoal”, and “it walks on land = herd”. There are exceptions, but that’s the broad approach

            • Skua@kbin.earth
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              8 days ago

              I would definitely recognise it and would not consider it weird if I heard someone say it, but I probably wouldn’t instinctively reach for it myself. That’s obviously just me though, not necessarily English speakers in general

              • dave@hal9000@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                8 days ago

                Ah ok. I am not a native speaker, but would say I have a near native fluency in American English (moved here at 15 having already learned it before), and school of fish would be my go to, but shoal is the same as you said to me, sounds perfectly natural. Now that I am thinking about it though, it feels like every time I was near one (on a boat, or scuba diving), people said shoal, and in more abstract settings, school was more common. That’s probably just me inventing a pattern though

    • unexposedhazard
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      9 days ago

      Yeah all of these can be replaced with “group” with no loss in specificity.

      • fiercekitten@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        Pretty much. There’s no need to learn all these terms. When in doubt, just call the animal group a group. No one is going to care otherwise.

  • IninewCrow@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    9 days ago

    I’m Ojibway/Cree from northern Ontario in Canada

    In English - a group of moose is just ‘a group of moose’ … as far as I know, I’ve never heard of meese or mooses … or else people just say two moose, three moose, four moose, etc.

    In Ojibway/Cree - one moose is ‘moose’, because moose is an indigenous word … a group of moose in my language is MOOSUK

    • dave@hal9000@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 days ago

      Very interesting, thanks for sharing. Just curious, is -uk just a general suffix to make anything plural, or this is just a one off thing here?

      • IninewCrow@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        8 days ago

        Yes it is for most words.

        Goose is niska … the plural is niskuk

        Beaver is amisk… the plural is amiskuk

        It’s not a hard rule but it applies to many things, objects and animals.

  • Redex@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    8 days ago

    Who decides stuff like this? Who’s like “hmm, yeah a group of owls is definitely a parliament”

  • Mycatiskai@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    8 days ago

    I don’t know if it is still in print but there is a book that is a collection of collective nouns. The book is called An Exaltation of Larks by James Lipton.

    It is the same James Lipton who hosts the Inside the Actors Studio.