Skip to main content

A bewilderment of peacocks

If I'm honest, I don't know what the collective term for peacocks is (probably something boring like a 'flock'), so I made up 'a bewilderment.'

I bring up peacocks to celebrate a new expression (well, new to me), I've just come across on Wikipedia. I was looking up the remarkable creativity guru Edward de Bono on that rollercoaster ride of an encylopedia, and was given this opinion on the article on de Bono: 'Its quality may be compromised by peacock terms.'

Two things immediately came to mind. One was that this is just such a wonderful concept. The term may have originated elsewhere, but for me this is Wikipedia enriching the language. Secondly, anyone who has ever met Mr de Bono couldn't help but smile at the aptness of the expression.

There's something very pleasing about language that is rich, where a few words can put across a whole palette of meaning. For me, 'peacock terms' is just such language. Thanks, Wikipedia (also for the photo).
Labels:

Comments

  1. Barbara Axt12 October 2009 at 10:51

    Great - and useful - concept. Thanks for sharing it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Henry Berry12 October 2009 at 14:03

    I think it's a muster.

    ReplyDelete
  3. laurasdad13 October 2009 at 07:13

    An "ostentation" of peacocks is the more unusual collective noun - this fits in well with Edward de Bono too.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...
118 comments
Read more

Murder by Candlelight - Ed. Cecily Gayford ***

Nothing seems to suit Christmas reading better than either ghost stories or Christmas-set novels. For some this means a fluffy romance in the snow, but for those of us with darker preferences, it's hard to beat a good Christmas murder. An annual event for me over the last few years has been getting the excellent series of classic murderous Christmas short stories pulled together by Cecily Gayford, starting with the 2016 Murder under the Christmas Tree . This featured seasonal output from the likes of Margery Allingham, Arthur Conan Doyle, Ellis Peters and Dorothy L. Sayers, laced with a few more modern authors such as Ian Rankin and Val McDermid, in some shiny Christmassy twisty tales. I actually thought while purchasing this year's addition 'Surely she is going to run out of classic stories soon' - and sadly, to a degree, Gayford has. The first half of Murder by Candlelight is up to the usual standard with some good seasonal tales from the likes of Catherine Aird, Car...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...
25 comments
Read more