Antique-shop.com
Antiques! => Antique Questions Forum => Topic started by: sugarcube5419 on August 15, 2016, 11:14:47 am
-
anybody know the company name?
-
bottoms up
-
I hate to be pedantic, but that's a mallard drake, not a wood duck. Don't know the company stamp.... :)
-
sorry ghopper
-
Sugar Cube,
I believe it is
French Broad River Decoy
Town might be: Saluda, North Carolina
They seem to be offered on eBay from $30 up.
PeLady
-
$6.99??????? Deal!
Yep the FRENCH Broad River Decoy Company! Beat me to it Pelady! Located in Edneyville! Family owned. Seen a duck decoy or two and these are not for throwing in the water and blowing your quackers!
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1665&dat=19860511&id=6RsaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=pCQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6278,2546097&hl=en (https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1665&dat=19860511&id=6RsaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=pCQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6278,2546097&hl=en)
-
Okay, I DIDN'T put emoji's in the post above but they are showing up!
-
THANKYOU
-
I hate to be pedantic, but that's a mallard drake, not a wood duck. Don't know the company stamp.... :)
I think she meant made of wood !! Wooden duck !!
-
Of course, saying woodEN would have put a entirely different spin on it.
-
I looked twice too !!
-
I hate to be pedantic, but that's a mallard drake, not a wood duck. Don't know the company stamp.... :)
I chuckled at the intended "pun" in the above. ;D
But I had to look up the definition of "pedantic", which its synonyms are: overscrupulous, scrupulous, precise, exact, perfectionist, punctilious, meticulous, fussy, fastidious, finicky.
So, MLO is that it is in fact a "wood duck" ...... but that wood duck is not a "Wood Duck". ;) ;) ;)
Most older decoys are wood ducks, newer ones are plastic ducks.
And you can buy plastic Wood Duck decoys.
-
OK, now I'm going to have to get pedantic: What we've got here is a case of capitalitis (a pathogen otherwise known as Uppercasis ludicrosii).
A duck decoy made of wood is a wooden duck. The beautiful species of duck that everyone loves is a wood duck. A wood duck can be either a wooden duck or a plastic duck, but it's always lower case. In the anglicized form of latin binomial nomenclature, the species is not capitalized unless it contains a proper name.
To wit: Stellar's jay. While the Stellar's in Stellar's jay is capitalized because it's named after Mr. Stellar, the blue in blue jay is not. OK kids, this will be on the quiz at the end of the semester. :)
The important thing is that we know who made the duck, thanks to PeLady. ;)
-
LOL !! I didn`t know the word or its proper use either but figured the way the sentence read it just meant "picky" !! You see we in Texas have a tendency to simplify things !!
-
a case of capitalitis (a pathogen otherwise known as Uppercasis ludicrosii).
ghopper, that was a goodern, .... I liked it. ;) ;)
But anyway, you are technically correct with your "capitalitis" claim.
And being technically correct means that one’s written verbiage should adhere to your stated vocabulary Rule that …… “In the anglicized form of latin(sic) binomial nomenclature, the species is not capitalized unless it contains a proper name.”
But, you can’t be writing “technical” verbiage if your commentary is to be read and understood by the general populace simply because many of said populace won‘t or can’t comprehend exactly what the animal or plant actually is that was stipulated in your commentary.
Thus, to prevent confusion and whenever appropriate it is best to use proper, common and/or capitalized names to define individual animals or plants or a pseudo-name for a particular species or sub-species. For example, more readers will know what you are talking about if you write “Killer Whale” verses “killer whale”, …. or “Orca” verses ”orca”, ….. and forget about writing “Orcinus orca”. And the same goes for “Wood Duck” verses ”wood duck” as the following four (4) url links typifies.
https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Wood_Duck/lifehistory (https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Wood_Duck/lifehistory) - non-technical commentary
http://www.audubon.org/field-guide/bird/wood-duck (http://www.audubon.org/field-guide/bird/wood-duck) - non-technical commentary
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood_duck (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood_duck) - technical commentary
http://www.ducks.org/hunting/waterfowl-id/wood-duck#ad-image-0 (http://www.ducks.org/hunting/waterfowl-id/wood-duck#ad-image-0) - technical commentary
-
Heh, glad you liked it.
"But, you can’t be writing “technical” verbiage if your commentary is to be read and understood by the general populace simply because many of said populace won‘t or can’t comprehend exactly what the animal or plant actually is that was stipulated in your commentary."
But I can and will! Speculating about the general populace and it's ability to comprehend exactly is inexact at best, so you might as well do the right thing instead of assuming a level of can't and won't. When I was editing department of transportation documents for statewide public consumption, it was the opinion of the wildlife biologists involved that correct usage should apply no matter who was reading it. It was just as easy to write the right thing as to write the wrong thing, or not to care either way. So why not do it right?
Well, after this it will all be hair splitting and "who's right." Uh oh, I forgot to capitalize "Latin" so that shows how dumb I am! Did I err? Yes, I did. I'm happy to say so, in the hopes that it will provide an antidote to that hobgoblin of little minds, a foolish consistency. But don't confuse foolish and consistency. Anyway, I happily admit that I'm an atavism: the sad fact is that most people don't speak, think or read beyond a 4th grade level, a fact of which at least one of our leading politicians is well aware. I've said my piece and PeLady figured out who made the duck, so mission accomplished. Any future misunderstandings re: usage will just have to be chalked up to that old fuddy-duddy Ghopper, you know how HE is! ;)
-
I was just having a trivia type "fun" conversation.
Anyway, I apologize iffen I "ruffled your feathers" because I didn't mean to criticize or defame your person.
I guess I should have remembered that you are easily irritated when ever anyone questions your perceived "expertise" on most any subject matter. I will try to avoid any further conversations with you.
And ps, ghopper1924. I was awarded an AB Teaching Degree in Biological Science and iffen that state biologist you were working with was worth a hoot then there would NOT have been any need for you to do any "editing" of his commentary. And besides, as a once Certified High School Teacher .... I disagree with his "correct usage" claim.
If a majority of the public can't read/comprehend those DOT documents .... then "statewide consumption" will primarily be the "trash cans" where ever. Cause that is what "correct usage" will getcha.
-
LOL, this reminds me of the old "cherrywood" fuss, there is no species of tree named cherrywood but you see it ALL the time in auction/sales descriptions, much to the distress of woodworkers who hate imprecise language when talking about wood. Your table, chair, chest is CHERRY! or cherry wood but not "cherrywood".
-
LOL, this reminds me of the old "cherrywood" fuss, there is no species of tree named cherrywood but you see it ALL the time in auction/sales descriptions, much to the distress of woodworkers who hate imprecise language when talking about wood. Your table, chair, chest is CHERRY! or cherry wood but not "cherrywood".
Yep, exactly!! ;D Or, in architectural terms, a one-story house is a "rancher." A rancher is someone who runs a ranch. A ranch house is what they mean, and it's usually realtors who say it. Because of their imprecise language, lots of people call single-story houses "ranchers." Not world-shaking in itself, but just one more example. :)
-
LOL !! Now that is really weird because I understood you perfectly Cogar !!
-
I know Mart, when you are around 'em long enough they start to make sense! :)
🤔😳😀