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

@McTag,

McTag wrote:

I feel first of all that this conversation is straying off the subject.

Not at all - my question is directly to the point, namely the acceptability of the same word having multiple dissimilar meanings.

2 Replies

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Beyond the two that immediately come to mind

The thought of McTag, the mighty stallion, covering a compliant mare... and... and... so huge... I'd better stop, I think, and take a cold shower.

1 Reply

@contrex,

Quote:

JTT wrote:
Beyond the two that immediately come to mind

Quote:

The thought of McTag, the mighty stallion, covering a compliant mare... and... and... so huge... I'd better stop, I think, and take a cold shower.

The two I had in mind were those that would come to a mind that wasn't perverted.

1 Reply

@contrex,

Quote:

I feel first of all that this conversation is straying off the subject.

That's an A2K favorite. To McTag's credit he didn't call you a troll. That's another A2K favorite.

0 Replies

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

The two I had in mind were those that would come to a mind that wasn't perverted.

Well, they would pass me by for sure...

0 Replies

If you look at the first paragraph of Yochelson's book, which I reproduced above, you can see what I mean about being him not being a professional writer.

0 Replies

@contrex,

Quote:

Not at all - my question is directly to the point, namely the acceptability of the same word having multiple dissimilar meanings.

That is widely accepted, and has been often discussed on these pages.
I would however return you to the original question, which I was trying to address. Someone said there is no difference between the two words quoted, and my opinion differed. That's it.
Happily, the dictionaries consulted, by several contributors, seemingly tend to agree with me.

1 Reply

The distinction is pretty simple, really. All ancestors are predecessors. Not all predecessors are necessarily ancestors. Margaret Tudor is the ancestress of Elizabeth Windsor, and her predecessor. Isaac Newton was the predecessor of Albert Einstein, but not his ancestor.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Very good, Set. I wish I had thought of that.

Thinking more about it, I think that if I was using the word "predecessor" I would be thinking of a particular field or area of activity.

1 Reply

@McTag,

McTag wrote:

Thinking more about it, I think that if I was using the word "predecessor" I would be thinking of a particular field or area of activity.

A Duke Of Devonshire could quite appropriately talk about his predecessors in that position, who would of course be his ancestors. I can quite happily talk about our ancestors, the Saxons, even though I don't know which ones, if any, I am descended from.

1 Reply

@contrex,

The term 'apoplexy' survived well past the 18th century.
The post-mortemn examinations between 1877 to 1961 which led to the emergence and popularity of the term 'cardiovascular disease' and 'Cerebrovascular Disease' eventually led to the disappearance of the use of apoplexy from medical terminology around that time.
Stroke, as a conventional term, is believed to begin in 1962 when the Chest and Heart association published booklets with regards to the term 'stroke-illness.' So it was only around forty to fifty years back that the term 'stroke' became a lay term.

0 Replies

@contrex,

Which is pretty much what Set said. I don't demur.

0 Replies

@McTag,

Quote:

Skar: The terms can definitely overlap. Predecessors are the ones who came before you. Ancestors are the ones who you share a bloodline and a family history with, and who came and passed away long before your existence. The word predecessor specifically do not suggest family ties, but just someone or something that came before the the person or object used in comparison. However, under the right context, predecessor can be used synonymously with ancestor.

Quote:

McTag: I'm not so sure about that.

I would only use ancestor where there is a blood relation, predecessor where there is not.

Quote:

Setanta: The distinction is pretty simple, really. All ancestors are predecessors. Not all predecessors are necessarily ancestors. Margaret Tudor is the ancestress of Elizabeth Windsor, and her predecessor. Isaac Newton was [the] a predecessor of Albert Einstein, but not his ancestor.

Quote:

McTag: Very good, Set. I wish I had thought of that.

Thinking more about it, I think that if I was using the word "predecessor" I would be thinking of a particular field or area of activity.

How can you agree with Setanta in your first sentence, McTag, and then immediately turn around and hew to your original, mistaken position.

Quote:

Someone said there is no difference between the two words quoted, and my opinion differed. That's it.

I wonder who that someone was. I don't recall any someone saying that.

Isn't Skar's description the same as Set's?

1 Reply

@JTT,

I think I know what I meant. Insofar as I have been inconsistent or unclear, I will try harder in future.

A predecessor can be an ancestor, but usually in a certain post or line of work.

An ancestor is a predecessor: he's dead and gone.

So when Skar wrote

Quote:

under the right context, predecessor can be used synonymously with ancestor.

he was right.

However I reserve my position in pointing out the differences between the words. I hope these exchanges have been useful to the original questioner.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know