# twenty bovines



## lzarzalejo73

Hello. I am writing a book about a family of farmers in the 19th century, and I was wondering if _bovin_e, apart from an adjective, could be used as a noun, and in that case, if it was countable or uncountable. Here is the sentence: "The enormous cowshed could shelter around twenty *bovines* between cows, bulls and oxen, as well as some calves in eight separate cubicles." 
Thanks in advance for your kind cooperation.


----------



## owlman5

Hello, Izarzalejo. Yes, you can use _bovine _as a word that includes cattle and oxen. Here is a relevant definition from our dictionary for the noun _bovine_:

a bovine animal.

The noun is countable.


----------



## lzarzalejo73

Thank you, owlman5.


----------



## se16teddy

Though I doubt any 19th century farmers would use the term “bovine” - not as a noun anyway.


----------



## lzarzalejo73

Thanks, se16teddy. I am sure they would not, the same as they would not use much of the vocabulary  *I* am using in the book to describe a fiction of the way they lived.


----------



## se16teddy

That’s fine: the “persona” of the narrator is a 21st century person with a specialist interest in cattle farming.


----------



## Loob

You could always just omit "bovines" and the "between" that follows it.


----------



## lzarzalejo73

Why should I, Loob?


----------



## lzarzalejo73

I am afraid you are wrong, se16teddy, but I will not unveil my motivation, the moral of the story. I have always known it is not going to be a best-seller, apt for all readers.


----------



## lzarzalejo73

By the way, Loob, you have been of great help. I just realised _between_ should be _among. _Thanks.


----------



## Loob

lzarzalejo73 said:


> Why should I, Loob?



The sentence would, I think, sound more natural that way.
...
cross-posted


----------



## lzarzalejo73

se16teddy, I have been thinking there should be nothing wrong with trying to narrate something using a 21st century vocabulary to describe the way my grandparents, and many other farmers, raised their cattle on their dairy farm. at the end of the 19th century, even if is an uninteresting subject for many people who like metaverse best.


----------



## cidertree

Not at all. Anachronisms, deliberately used, can be effective.

What do you mean by "metaverse"?


----------



## lzarzalejo73

Thank you, cidertree but it is not an anachronism. I am not trying to be deliberately effective. I am not saying that farmers, at that time, not even nowadays probably, would describe their cattle with that name. I am describing with present-day vocabulary the way the cowshed was arranged in the past, at least on their farm.


----------



## cidertree

My mistake. It was the mention of the 19th century in your question that threw me.


----------



## PaulQ

The use of "bovine" is fraught: Whereas bovine is chiefly an adjective, it is used as an attributive noun in order to refer to _any _member of the ox family - of which there are many varieties, wild and domestic - and is therefore a hypernym. A hypernym is too broad for your book.

However, the good news is that "bovine" was used as a noun in the 19th century.

1865   _Athenæum_ No. 1969. 103/3   _No wild bovine is now known in Syria._

The bad news is that again "bovine" is being used as a hypernym. The result is that the narration seems artificial.

In the 19th century cattle were often referred to as "beasts" where the nature of the "beast" had been established. From OED:

*2 c.* spec. *A farm animal of the bovine kind, esp. as kept for milk or meat; a cow, bull, ox, etc.; regional a particular type of such animal, as a bull, a bullock. Also (British regional) as collective plural: animals of this kind; cattle, oxen.*

PS


lzarzalejo73 said:


> "The enormous cowshed could shelter around twenty *bovines* between cows, bulls and oxen


1. I am not a farmer, but my instincts tell me that a farmer keeps one bull and many cows. Keeping more than one bull is not a good idea. 2. Bulls, cows and oxen have a lot of overlap but the main difference is their use. It is therefore strange that to see them listed separately as indicators of the size of a barn.


----------



## cidertree

Agreed, and a capacity of _twenty_ "bulls, cows, and oxen - as well as some calves" does not an _enormous cowshed_ make.


----------



## lzarzalejo73

I do not see why my grandparents could not raise, like so many other farmers, some twelve dairy cows, an adult bull, two oxen and some five calves, sometimes more, sometimes less.


----------



## lzarzalejo73

I am sorry if the term bovine sounds artificial to you, PaulQ, just as hypernym sounds to me, and I am sure to many people. By the way, I have not been able to find that word in several dictionaries, such as Meriam-Webster.


----------



## owlman5

_Bovine _is a better choice than _ruminant _or _artiodactyl, _both of which are less specific. There aren't a lot of options out there if you need a word that refers to cows as well as oxen. _Twenty head of livestock _is possible, but it sure doesn't sound like an improvement to me...


----------



## lzarzalejo73

Yes, the cowshed was large, enormous, cidertree, even though it "only" housed some twenty bovines. In the sentence after, in the book, I describe the sheep, the goats, the draught mare and the station which shared the space. Now size, like many other things, is relative and big or small debatable, but for a relatively small farm, it was considered an enormous cowshed, By the way, they did not have a separate stable for the horses, nor a sheep pen, but they had a separate pigpen and an also large or relatively large henhouse in a chicken pen for poultry such as chickens, cocks or roosters, ducks, geese, pheasants and some doves, too, in a separate dovecote. Of course, when we see nowadays, industrial-size cattle farms with over 20,000 cows, like in the biggest one in Europe, my grandparents' cowshed was a small one, not an enormous one.


----------



## lzarzalejo73

I agree with you, owlman5. And, as Loob suggested earlier, in thread 7 I think, it would sound better if I changed _between_. I first changed it for _among them _"The enormous cowshed could shelter around twenty *bovines, among them* cows, bulls and oxen, as well as some calves in eight separate cubicles."
You have all been of great help, thanks.


----------



## abluter

There's a nice word, "_*cattle*_", that you could use instead of the faintly ridiculous "bovines".


----------



## Loob

lzarzalejo73 said:


> as Loob suggested earlier


I actually suggested taking out both "bovines" and "between".  "Bovines" really does sound incongruous in your context, I'm afraid.


----------



## ewie

Your use of _cubicles_ also strikes me as faintly comical, and (dare I say it?) as if you didn't know the first thing about farming.
The word is _stalls_


----------



## lzarzalejo73

Thanks, ewie. You are right, I have never been a farmer. My only experience in a frame lasted one year when I was 5 years old but I remember having seen, read about the word _stall. _On the other, my lack of experience in farming has nothing to do with the fact that my English is far from "perfect", some say it is "rather" proficient, only. Fortunately, I can count on people like you.


----------



## lzarzalejo73

Thanks, Loob. I finally have it as follows, thanks to all of you: "The enormous cowshed could shelter around twenty bovines, *including *cows, bulls and oxen, as well as some calves in eight separate *stalls*."


----------



## lzarzalejo73

Typo mistake, I am afraid, ewie. "Thanks, ewie. You are right, I have never been a farmer. My only experience in a frame *farm* lasted...


----------



## ewie

I hate to be such a nag about this, Izarza, but if you say


> shelter around twenty bovines, including cows, bulls and oxen


it raises the question _Well, what others? yaks? buffalos? ..._

@Loob's is really the best solution:


> shelter around twenty cows, bulls and oxen


----------



## lzarzalejo73

Thanks, ewie. I have gone back to using the word _about. _I think the sentence is good enough now, thanks to your valuable help.


----------



## lzarzalejo73

Horses for courses, abluter. What you call _faintly ridiculous "bovines" _may not sound absolutely ridiculous to other readers. But thanks for your cooperation, your assistance.


----------



## cidertree

Perhaps your perception is coloured by the Spanish _bovinos_. In your context, "bovines" is an odd choice of word.


----------



## Wordy McWordface

lzarzalejo73 said:


> What you call _faintly ridiculous "bovines" _may not sound absolutely ridiculous to other readers.


'Bovines' sounds pretty strange to all of us here, lzaralejo73.  We're all recommending you lose it.


----------



## Forero

lzarzalejo73 said:


> Horses for courses, abluter. What you call _faintly ridiculous "bovines" _may not sound absolutely ridiculous to other readers. But thanks for your cooperation, your assistance.


But horses are not bovines.


----------



## Wordy McWordface

ewie said:


> I hate to be such a nag about this..


Horses for courses?


----------



## Uncle Jack

Well, I am clearly the odd one out, since "bovine" as a coutable noun seems quite ordinary to me, although then adding "between cows, bulls and oxen" defeats the purpose of using the word.

The reason I might use "bovine" is because all of the other countable nouns are too specific: cow, bull, ox, bullock, heifer, calf. The obvious alternative, "cattle", I have never been entirely at ease with using as a countable noun.

In the context of the late nineteenth century, "bovine" would be unlikely outside of a scientific context, and "cattle" would be a collective noun, so I think you would need to use "twenty cows, bulls and oxen", or, since you have already called it a cowshed, "twenty animals" or "twenty beasts".


----------



## Wordy McWordface

ewie said:


> Your use of _cubicles_ also strikes me as faintly comical


----------



## Aguas Claras

I think that "bovines" could be used in this context, although I think I would use "head of cattle" _(edited to correct)_. It depends on the tone you want to give (but, as your native language is Spanish, you should remember that "bóvidos" in Spanish sounds more natural than "bovines" in English).

Regarding "between" and "among": in this sentence, "between" has the meaning of "adding together" and, as far as I know, you can't use "among" with that meaning. I would use "between", regardless of the number.

And, lastly, you could use "stalls" instead of "cubicles", but it is true that the spaces where calves are kept don't usually amount to proper stalls.


----------



## Wordy McWordface

Aguas Claras said:


> Regarding "between" and "among": in this sentence, "between" has the meaning of "adding together" and, as far as I know, you can't use "among" with that meaning. I would use "between", regardless of the number.


Are you saying that _"around twenty bovines between cows, bulls and oxen" _is correct? 

Neither _between _nor _among_ makes any sense to me.


----------



## velisarius

"Head of cattle" doesn't have a plural. "Twenty head of cattle" could be an option, though it's more normally used when we are talking about large numbers.


----------



## glamorgan

I too find "bovines" faintly absurd.

Journalists working for a certain British newspaper, the Daily Mail, regularly refer to cats as "felines" and dogs as "canines". Their reasons for doing so are never clear. I put it down to them not being very good writers.


----------



## Aguas Claras

Wordy McWordface said:


> Are you saying that _"around twenty bovines between cows, bulls and oxen" _is correct?
> 
> Neither _between _nor _among_ makes any sense to me.


Well, you could certainly say "between cows and bulls". I don't know whether you can add anything else but Uncle Jack doesn't seem to object to it in his post, although he might want to clarify.


Uncle Jack said:


> although then adding "between cows, bulls and oxen" defeats the purpose of using the word.



What sounds odd to me is "among".


----------



## Aguas Claras

velisarius said:


> "Head of cattle" doesn't have a plural. "Twenty head of cattle" could be an option, though it's more normally used when we are talking about large numbers.


You are right. It was a Spanglish slip on my part. "Head of cattle" it is! I will correct it in my post. Thanks.


----------



## Wordy McWordface

Aguas Claras said:


> Well, you could certainly say "between cows and bulls".


Really? But what does it mean?  I can't make any sense of the statement _"The enormous cowshed could shelter around twenty bovines between cows, bulls and oxen".  _I have never come across that usage of the word 'between'.


----------



## lzarzalejo73

Bovine is a perfectly English noun, as far as I know. Latin etymology, but that is not exclusive of Spanish nor other Latin languages. Of course, I am not a qualified linguist in any language. I would have never thought my book would stir up such passionate debate and I am flattered by it, but...


----------



## Loob

I assume you came here for advice, lzarzalejo73.  It is, of course, up to you whether you take it.


----------



## Myridon

You might at least try to avoid implying that our advice is stupid. 

It's enough to say that it was large enough for 20 cows.  The stalls for bulls and oxen are the same size. If you then want to tell us how many bulls there were, that would be fine, but describing the size of the barn is not a good place to be also giving us an inventory.


----------



## Uncle Jack

Aguas Claras said:


> Well, you could certainly say "between cows and bulls". I don't know whether you can add anything else but Uncle Jack doesn't seem to object to it in his post, although he might want to clarify.
> 
> 
> What sounds odd to me is "among".


My post was primarily about the word "bovines". To me, it is fine, but if you are going to write "cows, bulls and oxen" then "bovines" becomes wholly unnecessary.

However, the sentence with "between" is dubious. It appears to need a participle such as "spread" or "divided". I have no problem whatsoever with using "between" for more than two in this situation (and probably not in most other situation either), and "among" just sounds wrong, even with a participle.

"Among them" is grammatically fine, if you just wanted to describe some of the bovines (...twenty bovines, among them a prizewinning heifer called Daisy, for example). However, it does not work if you then describe all of the animals.


----------



## Aguas Claras

Wordy McWordface said:


> Really? But what does it mean?  I can't make any sense of the statement _"The enormous cowshed could shelter around twenty bovines between cows, bulls and oxen".  _I have never come across that usage of the word 'between'.


"Between" in the sense of "adding together".

"3. _Between_ can also be used to indicate something that is shared or combined.  ...

Between work and family life, she has no time for hobbies. (=adding together the time that she spends on work and the time she spends with her family, there’s no time left.)"

How to use "between," including idioms | Britannica Dictionary

Edited to add:

Now, what I would like to say to @lzarzalejo71 is that he/she is translating directly from the Spanish ("veinte bóvidos, entre vacas, toros y bueyes") and it does not sound the same in English, regardless of what is, or is not, correct. Could you not just say "The cowshed could house around twenty cows, bulls and oxen"?


----------



## lzarzalejo73

That is a possibility, Aguas Claras. Thanks. Although I am not bilingual, I am not "translating", I think.


----------



## Wordy McWordface

Aguas Claras said:


> "The cowshed could house around twenty cows, bulls and oxen"?


A much better idea.

As Loob said way back in #7 and repeated in #24: you need to lose both _bovines _and _between. _Both words are problematic and neither belongs in that sentence, for the reasons given above.


----------



## lzarzalejo73

Thanks, Wordy McWordfae. I guess I will have to drop out those two words as most WR members are against.


----------



## lzarzalejo73

By the way, I would say to all those who think _bovine_ sounds odd in English, that so does _siesta_ and _chorizo, _although these two words are undesirably alien barbarism, for some.   Unlike bovine, which is perfectly an English word. Still, I understand your _preoccupation_. I hope that is not another mistranslation.


----------



## lzarzalejo73

I am afraid, Aguas Claras, to say "The cowshed could house around twenty cows, bulls and oxen" could well be understood it could house 20 cows, plus a bull, two oxen, some claves,... Really, I will leave it as it is, and I do appreciate your efforts.


----------



## lzarzalejo73

You assumed right, Loop, and I have accepted some of your advice, but I cannot, I do not want to accept all of them. You are free to express your opinion, same as I am to follow it or not.


----------



## lzarzalejo73

I am sure you don't need me to tell you what I meant by _horses for course_s, WordyMacWordface, but here are some other sayings: "Everyone has their own axe to grind" or "One man's meat is another man's poison" and many more I am sure you know better than me. May I say that I am amazed to see the large number of dissenting theads this sentence has caused. I hope it has served as entertainment to some and I assure you all, once more, I sincerely appreciate your dedication.


----------



## Myridon

For some reason lost to history, English lacks a word in the normal, informal register for male and female _Bos taurus _together.  "Bovine" is a word in the scientific/academic register (and it covers all cow-like animals not just cows).  Ewes and rams are sheep (not ovines), hens and roosters/cockerels are chickens (not avians), cows and bulls are <no word>.  Many of us who are not purists will say that that word is "cows" (and we non-purists say that peacocks and peahens are peacocks not peafowl).


lzarzalejo73 said:


> By the way, I would say to all those who think _bovine_ sounds odd in English, that so does _siesta_ and _chorizo, _although these two words are undesirably alien barbarism, for some.   Unlike bovine, which is perfectly an English word. Still, I understand your _preoccupation_. I hope that is not another mistranslation.


"Bovine" is an actual word in English. It just that it's in a higher register and it covers a wider variety of animals.  Siesta and chorizo have their places in English as well.  I had chorizo just two weeks ago on a hamburger at an American hamburger restaurant.


----------



## Keith Bradford

PaulQ said:


> ...In the 19th century cattle were often referred to as "beasts" where the nature of the "beast" had been established. From OED:
> 
> *2 c.* spec. *A farm animal of the bovine kind,...*


*Beast *is still common, at lest in parts of Britain, and it is what I would expect the farmers themselves to have said in the 19th C.


----------



## lzarzalejo73

Thanks, everybody.


----------



## lzarzalejo73

Thanks, Keith Bradford. May I say I am not trying to transcribe what a 19th-century farmer would have said, or how he would have expressed it, I am simply writing and describing, as best as I can, in a 21st-century register (and considering I am not a native English speaker, so maybe not too appropriately) the way my grandparents lived, as well as many other farmers in 1953 when I spent a year on their farm. From all the comments, threads I have received, it seems my book will not be a best-seller but I did not expect it to be so, either. I hope to be able to finish it and publish it. I have always known I am not an accomplished writer, much less so when I write in English.


----------



## Loob

Don't do yourself down, lzarzalejo73.  You asked for advice; we gave it to you.  That's the way the system is supposed to work.


----------



## lzarzalejo73

I am afraid I got more than just advice though, from some members. Loop. In fact, someone, a moderator, has had to intervene, in fact, Loop. I considered having been the one who has been *criticized in a way that made me seem stupid or unsuccessful*. Let's give it up, shall we?


----------



## lzarzalejo73

Cidertree, you asked me what I meant for _metaverse_ and I forgot to answer. What I meant is that readers who may like reading about the way some farmers lived in the 19th century, their lifestyle, an image of past times, are probably not the ones who like _metaverse_. A way of saying that not everybody likes the same things.


----------



## cidertree

It doesn't really explain much but I sincerely appreciate your effort.


----------



## Myridon

lzarzalejo73 said:


> an uninteresting subject for many people who like metaverse best.


He means people who spend all their time on the Internet aren't very interested in this.


----------



## lzarzalejo73

There is a considerable difference between the Internet and metaverse, Myridon. On the other hand, I said "perhaps",_ maybe_: "...are *probably* not the ones who like _metaverse_." May I say that I constantly use the Internet but I don't think I would ever resort to the metaverse.


----------



## lzarzalejo73

I am sorry, cidertree, if I cannot explain better that I do not expect everybody to accept the use of _bovine_, or even appreciate, like the book I am writing.


----------



## cidertree

Not at all. I'm sure you're doing your best.

Good luck.


----------



## Myridon

lzarzalejo73 said:


> There is a considerable difference between the Internet and metaverse, Myridon. On the other hand, I said "perhaps",_ maybe_: "...are *probably* not the ones who like _metaverse_." May I say that I constantly use the Internet but I don't think I would ever resort to the metaverse.


The metaverse isn't actually a real thing yet on this planet (other than as the name of the company that owns Facebook).  We don't need to give too much consideration yet to the people who like the metaverse.


----------



## lzarzalejo73

Thank you, cidertree. I really appreciate your encouraging words, amid a storm of criticism.


----------



## lzarzalejo73

I also think the metaverse is not real, Myridom, and I don't simply mean it hasn't been introduced, yet. I even think the so-called virtual reality will never be real, a reality if we understand reality as something which happens in the real world. I think virtual and reality are incompatible, but I am sure many people disagree. Perhaps it will be, as Aldous Huxley described in A Brave New World, "simple" soma. Thanks.


----------



## Cagey

The topic question has been answered.

This tread is closed to avoid further topic drift. 

Cagey,
moderator


----------

