In article <sfo8an$9fd$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

>>> The oxford learners dictionary definition of 'cow' includes male animals
>>> (in particular it is usually males that are farmed for beef).

>> Learner=ignorant I assume.

>Never seen it, I always use the proper OED.
>
>I can't any suggestion that used for the male animal.

Which is a bit odd, since the OED is supposed to record usage, and it
is certainly in common use to refer to the species rather than just
the female.

Probably they will add it in a revision.

-- Richard

On Fri, 20 Aug 2021 13:34:43 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote in <kZSdnWzN4s76PIL8nZ2dnUU78RPNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>:

>On 19/08/2021 20:15, Owen Rees wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Aug 2021 14:38:20 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
>> wrote in <8M2dndZ7wtRNw4P8nZ2dnUU78fvNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>:
>>> On 17/08/2021 00:12, Owen Rees wrote:
>
>>>> The concept 'cow' is an abstraction, a specific actual cow is not. We
>>>> could not discuss cows in general if that were not the case.
>>>
>>> But what do you call the animal, if you don't know its gender?
>>
>> https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/cow_1?q=cow
>>
>> The oxford learners dictionary definition of 'cow' includes male animals
>> (in particular it is usually males that are farmed for beef).
>
>Learner=ignorant I assume.

Published by Oxford University Press and available free online. If you
think that the University of Oxford is promoting false information about
the English language then you might prefer the Cambridge Dictionary
(where the definition excludes male cattle).

>
>> Other dictionaries give the usage including males as informal and some
>> omit it.
>>
>> When discussing more that one, 'cattle' would be a suitable word -
>> 'kine' if you wish to be a bit archaic.
>
>That's the point. There's a plural but no singular.
>
>If one of the animals wandered into your garden and started eating the
>flowers, and you couldn't see what sex it was from where you were
>sitting, what would you say when you rang up the farmer? You'd have to
>wait until another wandered in, then you could say, "Two of your cattle
>are in my garden; please come and get them," by which time you wouldn't
>have any flowers left.

"One of your cattle is in my garden" would be equally valid. In this
case I think that the error in calling the animal a 'cow' if it were
actually a bull or a heifer is not significant.

If the animal is an adult you could call it an ox apparently but that
tends to be used more commonly to mean a castrated male used for pulling
things.

In any case, you are describing an arbitrary member of the species, or
some subset of the species, not a specific individual.

On Fri, 20 Aug 2021 17:06:37 +0000 (UTC), richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
(Richard Tobin) wrote in <sfonet$1eku$1@macpro.inf.ed.ac.uk>:

>In article <sfo8an$9fd$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>>> The oxford learners dictionary definition of 'cow' includes male animals
>>>> (in particular it is usually males that are farmed for beef).
>
>>> Learner=ignorant I assume.
>
>>Never seen it, I always use the proper OED.
>>
>>I can't any suggestion that used for the male animal.
>
>Which is a bit odd, since the OED is supposed to record usage, and it
>is certainly in common use to refer to the species rather than just
>the female.
>
>Probably they will add it in a revision.

Collins Dictionary online says that people sometimes refer to male and
female of the species as 'cow' with a note against the corresponding
definition to say "(not in technical use)".

One thing this illustrates is that languages such as English are not
particularly precise, especially in ordinary usage.

On 20/08/2021 22:18, Owen Rees wrote:
> Published by Oxford University Press and available free online. If you
> think that the University of Oxford is promoting false information about
> the English language then you might prefer the Cambridge Dictionary
> (where the definition excludes male cattle).

The full OED is free online if you have a library membership.

On 20/08/2021 18:06, Richard Tobin wrote:
> Which is a bit odd, since the OED is supposed to record usage, and it
> is certainly in common use to refer to the species rather than just
> the female.
>
> Probably they will add it in a revision.

Anyone can send in additions and corrections.

On Sat, 21 Aug 2021 00:03:22 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote in
<sfpcac$qda$1@dont-email.me>:

>On 20/08/2021 22:18, Owen Rees wrote:
>> Published by Oxford University Press and available free online. If you
>> think that the University of Oxford is promoting false information about
>> the English language then you might prefer the Cambridge Dictionary
>> (where the definition excludes male cattle).
>
>The full OED is free online if you have a library membership.

Not all libraries in the UK it would seem. Perhaps there is some
registration process I need to go through - the simple "put your library
card number in this box" approach does not work for me.

On 21/08/2021 00:31, Owen Rees wrote:
> Not all libraries in the UK it would seem. Perhaps there is some
> registration process I need to go through - the simple "put your library
> card number in this box" approach does not work for me.

Most have it available.

Some libraries allow people out of their area to register (or at least
used to).

There are usually pages on the library website for online service -
borrowing eBooks, reference books, accessing your library account to
renew books that you have out.

Some of the "national" libraries also have online access.

On 20/08/2021 18:06, Richard Tobin wrote:

> In article <sfo8an$9fd$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>>> The oxford learners dictionary definition of 'cow' includes male animals
>>>> (in particular it is usually males that are farmed for beef).
>
>>> Learner=ignorant I assume.
>
>> Never seen it, I always use the proper OED.
>>
>> I can't any suggestion that used for the male animal.
>
> Which is a bit odd, since the OED is supposed to record usage, and it
> is certainly in common use to refer to the species rather than just
> the female.
>
> Probably they will add it in a revision.

Are they allowed to suggest that a particular usage is incorrect?

I think a child would correct another child by saying, "Where are its
udders?" or "What with those bollocks?"

--
Max Demian

In article <rK2dnSeI8ZVaf738nZ2dnUU78IfNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>,
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>Are they allowed to suggest that a particular usage is incorrect?

It would be more appropriate to add an indication that if is
*considered* incorrect by some people. After all, most words were
`"incorrect" when they were first used.

>I think a child would correct another child by saying, "Where are its
>udders?" or "What with those bollocks?"

Perhaps a country child might correct a town child. Given the lack of
a common word for the species, using "cow" for that seems more useful
for people who don't deal with them in everyday life. It's like
insisting that a tomato is a fruit not a vegetable - true in one
technical usage, but irrelevant in non-technical English.

-- Richard

On 21/08/2021 12:51, Richard Tobin wrote:
> It would be more appropriate to add an indication that if is
> *considered* incorrect by some people. After all, most words were
> `"incorrect" when they were first used.

I think the important thing is giving examples of it being used. If
"wrong" then I am sure they can find some way to indicate that.

On 20/08/2021 13:34, Max Demian wrote:
> If one of the animals wandered into your garden and started eating the
> flowers, and you couldn't see what sex it was from where you were
> sitting, what would you say when you rang up the farmer? You'd have to
> wait until another wandered in, then you could say, "Two of your cattle
> are in my garden; please come and get them," by which time you wouldn't
> have any flowers left.

Male and female bovines are called 'beast' by farmers.

Bill

In message <iocs8jF1dcgU2@mid.individual.net>, williamwright
<wrightsaerials@f2s.com> writes
>On 20/08/2021 13:34, Max Demian wrote:
>> If one of the animals wandered into your garden and started eating
>>the flowers, and you couldn't see what sex it was from where you were
>>sitting, what would you say when you rang up the farmer? You'd have to
>>wait until another wandered in, then you could say, "Two of your
>>cattle are in my garden; please come and get them," by which time you
>>wouldn't have any flowers left.
>
>Male and female bovines are called 'beast' by farmers.
>
When I was a lad, and lived next to a farm, I believe that the 'beasts'
were the ones that had had their goolies removed.
--
Ian

On 21/08/2021 20:23, Ian Jackson wrote:
> In message <iocs8jF1dcgU2@mid.individual.net>, williamwright
> <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> writes
>> On 20/08/2021 13:34, Max Demian wrote:
>>> If one of the animals wandered into your garden and started eating
>>> the  flowers, and you couldn't see what sex it was from where you
>>> were sitting, what would you say when you rang up the farmer? You'd
>>> have to wait until another wandered in, then you could say, "Two of
>>> your cattle  are in my garden; please come and get them," by which
>>> time you wouldn't  have any flowers left.
>>
>> Male and female bovines are called 'beast' by farmers.
>>
> When I was a lad, and lived next to a farm, I believe that the 'beasts'
> were the ones that had had their goolies removed.

The farmers here call all cattle 'beast'.

Bill