8

I am interested in British English collective nouns for tiger. The wikipedia offers "streak" and "ambush". However, when I search google ngrams I get nothing at all for "streak of tigers" or "ambush of tigers".

Are these collective nouns actually in use and if so, when did they start being being used and are there any respectable examples of their use in printed material? Alternatively are there more common terms?

herisson
  • 81,803
Simd
  • 2,473
  • Why the downvote? – Simd Feb 08 '15 at 18:40
  • 6
    Since tigers live alone, do we need a collective noun for them? – Peter Shor Feb 08 '15 at 18:47
  • @PeterShor :) I think they can live in family units of size > 1. I am not sure that includes the dominant male however. The only vaguely respectable reference I could find was https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Bny27P7SGUQC&lpg=PA21&ots=wDayYYXvhZ&dq=%22a%20streak%20of%20tigers%22&pg=PA21#v=onepage&q=%22a%20streak%20of%20tigers%22&f=false . – Simd Feb 08 '15 at 18:48
  • 1
    Simply google streak of tigers and find the usage. Tigers are solitary creatures (see http://www.lairweb.org.nz/tiger/streaking.html), so apart from captivity there is very little cause to refer to a streak of tigers. – ScotM Feb 08 '15 at 18:50
  • @ScotM I obviously did google but that doesn't give a full answer. For example, maybe it is a rare term but the one used by experts . I am not sure they live exactly alone. Don't mother tigers live with their cubs for some time? – Simd Feb 08 '15 at 19:02
  • 1
    You could also try a serenade of tigers. Two books, 120 years apart, use the phrase. https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#tbm=bks&q=%22serenade+of+tigers%22. Venery is open to new terms. Collective nouns for tigers, I'd say, aren't well known. – Frank Feb 08 '15 at 19:07
  • 3
    1964 is the earliest date I can find for ambush of tigers at https://books.google.com/books?id=SbIPAQAAMAAJ&q=%22ambush+of+tigers%22&dq=%22ambush+of+tigers%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=trXXVLjHJdfluQTIt4AY&redir_esc=y , which doesn't put in it in the 'Book of St Albans' venery dept. There is a 1950 reference but it's about Tiger tanks. Streak of tigers 1997 (yesterday in venerial terms) https://books.google.com/books?id=SO3zAAAAMAAJ&q=%22streak+of+tigers%22&dq=%22streak+of+tigers%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CrfXVKGpFcqXuATdl4DABg&redir_esc=y – Frank Feb 08 '15 at 19:24
  • @Peter Shor 'cage' – Edwin Ashworth Feb 08 '15 at 23:01
  • Anonymous downvoters are a real pain, especially when a question actually shows some research. But I suspect the reason for the unfair downvote has to do something with the topic. It was very recently discussed on EL&U and perhaps the user thought you must have seen it. Here is the question and the admirable answers. http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/221686/etymology-of-a-pride-of-lions – Mari-Lou A Feb 09 '15 at 11:55
  • related Etymology of “a pride of lions” – Mari-Lou A Feb 09 '15 at 11:56

1 Answers1

9

They are terms of venery, which means that they are quite likely to have been made up just to be a bit funny and act as linguistic curios. Some terms of venery have a long-standing tradition and are actually in use in English (like a pride of lions or a school of fish), but many others, going all the way back to the 15th century and the Book of St. Albans, were/are clearly just made up to be amusing and set you off as someone who knows an awful lot about which specific collective noun to use for which specific animal.

Using a streak/ambush of tigers in an actual, normal English context would most likely just get you odd looks or blank stares. A few here and there may realise that you’re talking terms of venery, and they may even think that you just made it up yourself to be funny; but I would wager very, very few people would recognise them as ‘accepted’ collective nouns.

If you’re looking for a term that just makes your intention clear without sounding strange or abstruse, just use a generic collective noun, like a group of tigers. This is quite commonly used—it gives about 93,000 Google hits. Streak and ambush both give less than 5,000 hits, and most of the first ones are pages listing terms of venery.

Janus Bahs Jacquet
  • 32,382
  • 1
    I looked up venery in the OED. It gives me two options. These are "The practice or sport of hunting beasts of game; the chase" and "The practice or pursuit of sexual pleasure; indulgence of sexual desire." . Is "terms of venery" a well known idiom ? – Simd Feb 08 '15 at 18:55
  • 1
    Yes, fairly well-known. It refers to hunting here, obviously: terms of venery are collective nouns that refer specifically to animals as they are seen from the hunter’s perspective. It is part of the title of the Wikipedia article you linked to in your question, so I assumed you were familiar with the term already. There’s a slightly more detailed description of them here, and there are several questions about them here on ELU as well. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Feb 08 '15 at 18:58
  • Thanks. I did read the title of the wikipedia article, it just didn't fit with "They are terms of venery, which means that they are quite likely to have been made up just to be a bit funny and act as linguistic curios. " I see now that you making a separate statement that most collective nouns for animals should not be taken seriously. – Simd Feb 08 '15 at 18:59
  • 1
    At least many of them should not be considered normal collocations in actual use in English. They are just curios that you can use if you want to sound humoristic or deliberately esoteric. The difficult thing is telling the difference between these and the ones who are actually commonly used. Referring to a school of fish or a pod of whales, for example, is perfectly normal and colloquial English, no stranger than talking about a herd of sheep. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Feb 08 '15 at 20:23
  • 1
    Isn't it a flock of sheep? – Random832 Feb 09 '15 at 04:07
  • I personally would not use a group of tigers. It sounds like a specialist collective noun and could confuse. – Simd Feb 09 '15 at 15:16
  • @Lembik No, the thing about group is that it doesn’t sound specialist. It is the most natural word to use without sounding confusingly specialist. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Feb 09 '15 at 15:17
  • It sounds too much like a troupe of monkeys to my ears. I would just rephrase. – Simd Feb 09 '15 at 15:19
  • That is entirely in your ears. The phrase itself does not evoke troupes of monkeys. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Feb 09 '15 at 15:20
  • @Random832 Either or. You might get away with arguing that it’s only a herd of sheep if it’s actually herded, but I doubt most people would make any such distinction in normal speech. They’re completely interchangeable to me. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Feb 10 '15 at 22:10
  • 1
    I have only ever head a "flock of sheep" in my life. It is funny that you herd them though, I will grant you. A quick ngrams search confirms this although it does seem "herd of sheep" is becoming slightly more popular. https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=flock+of+sheep%2C+herd+of+sheep&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cflock%20of%20sheep%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cherd%20of%20sheep%3B%2Cc0 – Simd Feb 10 '15 at 22:32