5
   

Is predecessor still in use this way? Today we tend to use ancestor?

Forums: English, Esl, Grammar
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Mar, 2013 11:38 am
@McTag,
Roger loves to make cryptic remarks but he is loath to ever explain himself. Methinks he knows it will expose his ignorance.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Mar, 2013 11:47 am
@McTag,
Quote:
I personally think it useful to keep the two meanings separate.


Why, McTag? They weren't kept separate before.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Mar, 2013 11:50 am
@oristarA,
Ori, how come I got this,

Your search - "EARLY LIFE IN NEW YORK Charles D. Walcott's predecessors came from Shropshire ... - did not match any documents.

for a quote up to 1699?
contrex
 
  2  
Reply Sat 23 Mar, 2013 11:59 am
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

Ori, how come I got this,

Your search - "EARLY LIFE IN NEW YORK Charles D. Walcott's predecessors came from Shropshire ... - did not match any documents.

for a quote up to 1699?


Not sure what you mean here... the book from which the quote was taken is dated 1967.
McTag
 
  2  
Reply Sat 23 Mar, 2013 12:08 pm
@JTT,

Quote:
Why, McTag? They weren't kept separate before.


For reasons which are fairly obvious.
Shoe, sandal, slipper, footwear all denote similar things, and can in some cases be substituted one for another, but are all discrete useful words in their own right.
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Mar, 2013 12:17 pm
McTag, what are your feelings about the word 'nice' meaning "pleasant" and also "exact"?

JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Mar, 2013 01:06 pm
@contrex,
Quote:
Not sure what you mean here... the book from which the quote was taken is dated 1967.


I put in an exact quote into Google and got " did not match any documents". That's what puzzled me, C.

Were those the words of a writer of 1967 or were they a quote from an earlier time?
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Mar, 2013 01:12 pm
@McTag,
Quote:
Shoe, sandal, slipper, footwear all denote similar things, and can in some cases be substituted one for another, but are all discrete useful words in their own right.


Precisely - "can in some cases be substituted one for another", Sire.

How have you, in the past, and now, taken my use of "Sire", when I have used it to address you?
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Mar, 2013 01:17 pm
@JTT,
not sure why you couldn't find it


http://www.nasonline.org/publications/biographical-memoirs/memoir-pdfs/walcott-charles.pdf
Skar
 
  2  
Reply Sat 23 Mar, 2013 01:23 pm
@JTT,
Not that early in time, and this biographical memoir is written by Ellis Leon Yochelson (1928-2006).
See for yourself.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Mar, 2013 02:41 pm
@ehBeth,
Quote:
not sure why you couldn't find it


Rest assured that it isn't the same reason that keeps you from finding out about US involvement in places like, say, Vietnam.
0 Replies
 
contrex
 
  2  
Reply Sat 23 Mar, 2013 02:46 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

Quote:
Not sure what you mean here... the book from which the quote was taken is dated 1967.


I put in an exact quote into Google and got " did not match any documents". That's what puzzled me, C.

Were those the words of a writer of 1967 or were they a quote from an earlier time?


Odd. Maybe the EARLY LIFE IN NEW YORK was causing a problem. I did not use that, just the first few words of the paragraph-

(1)

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/badoit/Walcott1_zpsb529f453.jpg

(2)

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/badoit/Capture2_zps9d8617a6.jpg

contrex
 
  2  
Reply Sat 23 Mar, 2013 02:47 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:
Sire.


He's your sire? Dam!
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Mar, 2013 03:00 pm
@Skar,
I don't think it's so much the time of writing that is important, Skar. Unquestionably, the term is used, still, to mean ancestor. I see it pretty much as you do. I don't think that dictionaries are much help here for the simple reason that they state it is 'archaic'.

This has led me to rethink what they mean by such a term - 'archaic' - are they not misusing that word???? While I'm certainly no spring chicken, I think that archaic is a tad premature.

It has also led me to rethink some of my previous positions on words, although right now I can't recall which words they were. Does that indicate the I am, indeed, archaic?

Perhaps corpus studies might show that they could have more accurately used the term 'dated'.

Are 'groovy' and 'far out, man' archaic?

contrex
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Mar, 2013 03:08 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:
Are 'groovy' and 'far out, man' archaic?


Probably.

Oxford British & World English:

Quote:
archaic

adjective

* very old or old-fashioned:prisons are run on archaic methods

* (of a word or a style of language) no longer in everyday use but sometimes used to impart an old-fashioned flavour: a term with a rather archaic ring to it

* of an early period of art or culture, especially the 7th-6th centuries bc in Greece:the archaic temple at Corinth

0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Mar, 2013 03:20 pm
@contrex,
"died of apoplexy"

I don't even think that I would categorize 'apoplexy' as 'archaic', - I must admit that I don't know what medical state that entails. I do know, for sure, that it is dated.
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Mar, 2013 04:12 pm
@contrex,

Quote:
McTag, what are your feelings about the word 'nice' meaning "pleasant" and also "exact"?


I feel first of all that this conversation is straying off the subject.
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Mar, 2013 04:14 pm
@JTT,

Quote:
How have you, in the past, and now, taken my use of "Sire", when I have used it to address you?


I take it as an irony.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Mar, 2013 04:51 pm
@McTag,
Quote:
I take it as an irony.


Beyond the two that immediately come to mind, what of the use of "Sire", which also is archaic, and loaded with a number of meanings that don't at all cause us difficulty wrt intended meaning.
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Mar, 2013 05:49 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:
I don't even think that I would categorize 'apoplexy' as 'archaic', - I must admit that I don't know what medical state that entails. I do know, for sure, that it is dated.


It is tremendously archaic; it is - more or less - what people in the 18th century called a stroke. Its use in 1967 signals a high level of badness and laziness in the writing. I sort of guess that Hiram B Hackensacker or whatever his name is was commissioned by the NAS to produce the biography and I suspect he was paid by the yard.
 

Related Topics

deal - Question by WBYeats
Expert help needed: pronoun form following main verb before a gerund - Question by adavis444
Let pupils abandon spelling rules, says academic - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Please, I need help. - Question by imsak
Do you understand what "Transition overground" means? - Question by Alexander7
Is this sentence grammatically correct? - Question by Sydney-Strock
"come from" - Question by mcook
Is this paragraph incomprehensible? Would you suggest an edit? - Question by tamara123454
Does this sentence make any sense in English? - Question by estherara
Could someone review my assignment? - Question by kair0s
concentrated - Question by WBYeats
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Is predecessor still in use this way? Today we tend to use ancestor?
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 12/29/2024 at 02:55:01
▲ ▼