"Direct Descendant"
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
D. Spencer Hines
"Direct Descendant"
Let's face it, anyway you slice it "direct descendant" is both gibberish
and baloney.
It invariably confuses rather than enlightening the reader -- leading to
one of these silly-buggers discussions.
A very long previous such discussion marinates and ferments in the
Archives.
DSH
""Tony Hoskins"" <hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us> wrote in message
news:s23b061f.063@CENTRAL_SVR2...
| Actually, "direct descendant" was a phrase often used in the past,
| implying (correctly, at least at that time) that one could "descend"
| from a person collaterally. In other words, in common parlance one
| might have been considered a "descendant" of one's g-g-g- aunt,
| though not, of course, a "direct descendant".
|
| Anthony Hoskins
| History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
| History and Genealogy Library
| Sonoma County Library
| 3rd and E Streets
| Santa Rosa, California 95404
|
| 707/545-0831, ext. 562
and baloney.
It invariably confuses rather than enlightening the reader -- leading to
one of these silly-buggers discussions.
A very long previous such discussion marinates and ferments in the
Archives.
DSH
""Tony Hoskins"" <hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us> wrote in message
news:s23b061f.063@CENTRAL_SVR2...
| Actually, "direct descendant" was a phrase often used in the past,
| implying (correctly, at least at that time) that one could "descend"
| from a person collaterally. In other words, in common parlance one
| might have been considered a "descendant" of one's g-g-g- aunt,
| though not, of course, a "direct descendant".
|
| Anthony Hoskins
| History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
| History and Genealogy Library
| Sonoma County Library
| 3rd and E Streets
| Santa Rosa, California 95404
|
| 707/545-0831, ext. 562
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: "Direct Descendant"
Gordon and Leo are both absolutely right on this issue.
DSH
<GRHaleJr@aol.com> wrote in message
news:154.4d4433e7.2f6ce8f8@aol.com...
| Hines is right, and I argued with him about this at one time.
|
| You cannot be a descendant of an aunt or uncle, or any of the great
| aunts or uncles regardless of how many greats. You can only be
| "descended" from your parents through their parents and through
| their parents, etc.
|
| The phrase "direct descendant" is redundant in that you can ONLY be a
| "direct" descendant. All other persons are your relatives all the
| way back to Adam, or Odin, or whoever, but your are not their
| descendant, direct or otherwise, and such persons are not your
| ancestors.
|
| Thank you kindly for the time.
|
| Gordon Hale
| Grand Prairie, Texas
""Leo van de Pas"" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:001801c52c39$e89712a0$c3b4fea9@email...
| Dear Robert,
|
| My criticism to the term 'direct descendant' is very much
| tongue-in-cheek. Don't take it too seriously. I believe you are
| a descendant or you are not. If you have a direct descendant
| is there also a indirect descendant?
| This is what I don't like. I prefer it if people say Dracula is an
| 'ancestral uncle' of Prince Charles, then you know what they
| are saying. I know sometimes people talk about about ancestor
| meaning predecessor, but it is still the wrong use of the
| language (I think).
| Leo
DSH
<GRHaleJr@aol.com> wrote in message
news:154.4d4433e7.2f6ce8f8@aol.com...
| Hines is right, and I argued with him about this at one time.
|
| You cannot be a descendant of an aunt or uncle, or any of the great
| aunts or uncles regardless of how many greats. You can only be
| "descended" from your parents through their parents and through
| their parents, etc.
|
| The phrase "direct descendant" is redundant in that you can ONLY be a
| "direct" descendant. All other persons are your relatives all the
| way back to Adam, or Odin, or whoever, but your are not their
| descendant, direct or otherwise, and such persons are not your
| ancestors.
|
| Thank you kindly for the time.
|
| Gordon Hale
| Grand Prairie, Texas
""Leo van de Pas"" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:001801c52c39$e89712a0$c3b4fea9@email...
| Dear Robert,
|
| My criticism to the term 'direct descendant' is very much
| tongue-in-cheek. Don't take it too seriously. I believe you are
| a descendant or you are not. If you have a direct descendant
| is there also a indirect descendant?
| This is what I don't like. I prefer it if people say Dracula is an
| 'ancestral uncle' of Prince Charles, then you know what they
| are saying. I know sometimes people talk about about ancestor
| meaning predecessor, but it is still the wrong use of the
| language (I think).
| Leo
-
Gjest
Re: "Direct Descendant"
What WOULD be the term for a person to whom an ancestor was closely
related - such as a brother or sister? You share a genetic history
albeit to a lesser extent than with your actual ancestors.
related - such as a brother or sister? You share a genetic history
albeit to a lesser extent than with your actual ancestors.
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: "Direct Descendant"
----- Original Message -----
From: <lostcooper@yahoo.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2005 7:22 PM
Subject: Re: "Direct Descendant"
uncle or ancestral aunt seems a good choice to me. The words descendant and
ancestor are special words with their specific meaning. You cannot descend
from an uncle, because then he would be your father.
Leo
From: <lostcooper@yahoo.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2005 7:22 PM
Subject: Re: "Direct Descendant"
What WOULD be the term for a person to whom an ancestor was closely
related - such as a brother or sister? You share a genetic history
albeit to a lesser extent than with your actual ancestors.
Uncle, aunt would do, great uncle, great aunt and further back ancestral
uncle or ancestral aunt seems a good choice to me. The words descendant and
ancestor are special words with their specific meaning. You cannot descend
from an uncle, because then he would be your father.
Leo
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: "Direct Descendant"
In message of 19 Mar, lostcooper@yahoo.com wrote:
"Relation", or to be more specific "blood relation"?
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
What WOULD be the term for a person to whom an ancestor was closely
related - such as a brother or sister?
"Relation", or to be more specific "blood relation"?
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Chris Dickinson
Re: "Direct Descendant"
lostcooper@yahoo.com wrote:
I have this problem in the yeoman families that I research in a small area
of Cumberland. Quite often there are land holdings or other hints that
suggest a relationship, but not the actual genealogical proof. Very commonly
too, there are batches of adjacent farms c1600 with (by then) separate
families sharing the same surname - and likely therefore to be descended
from a common ancestor through the male line.
At the time, they solved the problem by calling everyone coz!
I tend now to use the word 'kin' or 'clan'.
Chris
http://www.rumbutter.com
What WOULD be the term for a person to whom an ancestor was closely
related - such as a brother or sister? You share a genetic history
albeit to a lesser extent than with your actual ancestors.
I have this problem in the yeoman families that I research in a small area
of Cumberland. Quite often there are land holdings or other hints that
suggest a relationship, but not the actual genealogical proof. Very commonly
too, there are batches of adjacent farms c1600 with (by then) separate
families sharing the same surname - and likely therefore to be descended
from a common ancestor through the male line.
At the time, they solved the problem by calling everyone coz!
I tend now to use the word 'kin' or 'clan'.
Chris
http://www.rumbutter.com
-
John Steele Gordon
Re: "Direct Descendant"
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:_rL_d.1428$uC2.4344@eagle.america.net...
This is actually a linguistic question, not a genealogical one.
It is a fundamental truth in linguistics that words and phrases mean what
they mean, not what logic says they should mean. "American Indian" is,
logically, gibberish. Indians come from India, half a world away from
America. Yet, thanks to some confused early European explorers, the
aboriginal inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere are, quite regardless of
logic, Indians (les Indiens in French, los Indios in Spanish, os Indianos in
Portuguese).
So with "descendant." Logic demands that one can only descend from an
ancestor, not from a close relative of an ancestor. Yet everyone on SGM
knows exactly what "collateral descendant" and "collateral ancestor" mean,
and, I have no doubt, use the phrases in that sense, because they are a lot
shorter than "descendant of a close relative of." We use the adjective
"direct" when we need, because of context, to emphasize that the descent is
NOT collateral, otherwise, we use "descendant" unmodified to mean lineal
descendant.
The OED defines "collateral ancestor" as "a brother or sister of a parent,
grandparent, or other lineal ancestor." What's good enough for the OED is
quite good enough for me, thank you. Life is short enough without letting
"logic" interfere with meaning.
JSG
news:_rL_d.1428$uC2.4344@eagle.america.net...
Let's face it, anyway you slice it "direct descendant" is both gibberish
and baloney.
It invariably confuses rather than enlightening the reader -- leading to
one of these silly-buggers discussions.
This is actually a linguistic question, not a genealogical one.
It is a fundamental truth in linguistics that words and phrases mean what
they mean, not what logic says they should mean. "American Indian" is,
logically, gibberish. Indians come from India, half a world away from
America. Yet, thanks to some confused early European explorers, the
aboriginal inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere are, quite regardless of
logic, Indians (les Indiens in French, los Indios in Spanish, os Indianos in
Portuguese).
So with "descendant." Logic demands that one can only descend from an
ancestor, not from a close relative of an ancestor. Yet everyone on SGM
knows exactly what "collateral descendant" and "collateral ancestor" mean,
and, I have no doubt, use the phrases in that sense, because they are a lot
shorter than "descendant of a close relative of." We use the adjective
"direct" when we need, because of context, to emphasize that the descent is
NOT collateral, otherwise, we use "descendant" unmodified to mean lineal
descendant.
The OED defines "collateral ancestor" as "a brother or sister of a parent,
grandparent, or other lineal ancestor." What's good enough for the OED is
quite good enough for me, thank you. Life is short enough without letting
"logic" interfere with meaning.
JSG
-
Richard Smyth at UNC-CH
Re: "Direct Descendant"
John:
It is useless to argue the facts of this matter with those on the list who have persuaded themselves that the question can be settled by argument and invective, rather than by appeal to the linguistic facts. If you search the archive, you will see that I provided citations from a well-respected author and from the OED to show that the facts are as you have reported them.
But if some people wish to deprive themselves of terminology which is well-established and well-understood, why should the rest of us care?
Regards,
Richard Smyth
smyth@nc.rr.com
It is useless to argue the facts of this matter with those on the list who have persuaded themselves that the question can be settled by argument and invective, rather than by appeal to the linguistic facts. If you search the archive, you will see that I provided citations from a well-respected author and from the OED to show that the facts are as you have reported them.
But if some people wish to deprive themselves of terminology which is well-established and well-understood, why should the rest of us care?
This is actually a linguistic question, not a genealogical one.
It is a fundamental truth in linguistics that words and phrases mean what
they mean, not what logic says they should mean.
Regards,
Richard Smyth
smyth@nc.rr.com
-
Tony Hoskins
Re: "Direct Descendant"
To be a descendant is *not necessarily* to be a direct descendant.
http://www.legal-explanations.com/defin ... endant.htm
Since there is at least one other type of "descendant" besides
"direct", the adjective "direct" cannot be redundant.
This discussion seems agreed on common usage, preferences, but errs in
missing the distinction.
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
http://www.legal-explanations.com/defin ... endant.htm
Since there is at least one other type of "descendant" besides
"direct", the adjective "direct" cannot be redundant.
This discussion seems agreed on common usage, preferences, but errs in
missing the distinction.
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: "Direct Descendant"
"Tony Hoskins"" <hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us> wrote in message
news:s23bf0d5.092@CENTRAL_SVR2... some errant twaddle.
These discussions always bring the loons right out of the woodwork --
like termites swarming in April.
Fun And Games....
Leo van de Pas and Gordon Hale are eminently correct -- while Gordo and
Hoskins are dead wrong.
Strive for clarity, conciseness and coherence in Genealogy -- not
confusing Gobbledygook.
If you want to refer to someone who is a brother or sister of an
ancestor say:
9th Great-Granduncle -- or 15th Great-Grandaunt, for example.
By the same logic, if you want to refer to someone who descends from a
brother or sister of your ancestor refer to them generically as:
Cousins
Kin
Relatives
Relations
Try to be specific when you can:
"Hezekiah is my 7th cousin, thrice removed", is FAR clearer, better and
more genealogically professional than saying "Hezekiah is a collateral
ancestor of mine."
The terms "Direct Descendant" and "Collateral Ancestor" are for
pretentious amateurs, buffoons and charlatans trying to appear
self-important.
Further, Gordo's attempt to bring Columbus's mistake about the Indians
in America into the discussion is:
HILARIOUS!
And quite simply one of the worst and most poorly constructed:
RED HERRINGS
I have ever seen introduced on SGM.
'Nuff Said.
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
news:s23bf0d5.092@CENTRAL_SVR2... some errant twaddle.
These discussions always bring the loons right out of the woodwork --
like termites swarming in April.
Fun And Games....
Leo van de Pas and Gordon Hale are eminently correct -- while Gordo and
Hoskins are dead wrong.
Strive for clarity, conciseness and coherence in Genealogy -- not
confusing Gobbledygook.
If you want to refer to someone who is a brother or sister of an
ancestor say:
9th Great-Granduncle -- or 15th Great-Grandaunt, for example.
By the same logic, if you want to refer to someone who descends from a
brother or sister of your ancestor refer to them generically as:
Cousins
Kin
Relatives
Relations
Try to be specific when you can:
"Hezekiah is my 7th cousin, thrice removed", is FAR clearer, better and
more genealogically professional than saying "Hezekiah is a collateral
ancestor of mine."
The terms "Direct Descendant" and "Collateral Ancestor" are for
pretentious amateurs, buffoons and charlatans trying to appear
self-important.
Further, Gordo's attempt to bring Columbus's mistake about the Indians
in America into the discussion is:
HILARIOUS!
And quite simply one of the worst and most poorly constructed:
RED HERRINGS
I have ever seen introduced on SGM.
'Nuff Said.
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
-
Gjest
Re: "Direct Descendant"
In a message dated 3/19/2005 11:49:09 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
smyth@email.unc.edu writes:
But if some people wish to deprive themselves of terminology which is
well-established and well-understood, why should the rest of us care?
There is an old trick question:
How many legs does a cow have? Answer four.
If I call the tail a leg, how many legs does a cow have? Not five because
my calling the tail a leg does not make it a leg.
Calling a person a descendant does not make that person a descendant, only
biology can do that. A descendant need not be embellished with extra words
such as "direct". The word direct adds nothing to the value of the word,
merely elaborates it and is therefore unneccessary.
Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas
smyth@email.unc.edu writes:
But if some people wish to deprive themselves of terminology which is
well-established and well-understood, why should the rest of us care?
This is actually a linguistic question, not a genealogical one.
It is a fundamental truth in linguistics that words and phrases mean what
they mean, not what logic says they should mean.
There is an old trick question:
How many legs does a cow have? Answer four.
If I call the tail a leg, how many legs does a cow have? Not five because
my calling the tail a leg does not make it a leg.
Calling a person a descendant does not make that person a descendant, only
biology can do that. A descendant need not be embellished with extra words
such as "direct". The word direct adds nothing to the value of the word,
merely elaborates it and is therefore unneccessary.
Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas
-
Tony Hoskins
Re: "Direct Descendant"
"Leo van de Pas and Gordon Hale are eminently correct -- while Gordo and
Hoskins are dead wrong."
Please read and consider my previous posting:
http://www.legal-explanations.com/defin ... endant.htm
Merely prounouncing your judgement ex cathedra - especially without
rationale - doesn't cinch the point
Hoskins are dead wrong."
Please read and consider my previous posting:
To be a descendant is *not necessarily* to be a direct descendant.
http://www.legal-explanations.com/defin ... endant.htm
Since there is at least one other type of "descendant" besides
"direct", the adjective "direct" cannot be redundant.
Merely prounouncing your judgement ex cathedra - especially without
rationale - doesn't cinch the point
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: "Direct Descendant"
Hoskins red herring has been read and rejected.
It is completely irrelevant to this discussion and has no standing.
'Nuff Said.
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
It is completely irrelevant to this discussion and has no standing.
'Nuff Said.
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
-
Tony Hoskins
Re: "Direct Descendant"
These words from the Monticello Association,
http://www.monticello-assoc.org/faq.html#buried , are on target:
4. Who can be buried in the graveyard?
Burial is open to any lineal descendant of Thomas Jefferson.
5. What is a "lineal descendant"?
A person who is in direct line to an ancestor, such as child,
grandchild, great-grandchild and on forever. A lineal descendant is
distinguished from a "collateral" descendant, which would be from the
line of a brother, sister, aunt or uncle.
Descendant
"Those persons who are in the blood stream of the ancestor. Term means
those descended from another, persons who proceed from a body of another
such as a child or grandchild, to the remotest degree; it is the
opposite of "ascendants".
Basssett v. Merlin, Inc. Fla. App., 304 SO.2d 543,544
In the plural, the term means issue, offspring or posterity in general.
Also, all those to whom an estate descends, whether it be in a direct or
collateral line from the intestate."
http://www.monticello-assoc.org/faq.html#buried , are on target:
4. Who can be buried in the graveyard?
Burial is open to any lineal descendant of Thomas Jefferson.
5. What is a "lineal descendant"?
A person who is in direct line to an ancestor, such as child,
grandchild, great-grandchild and on forever. A lineal descendant is
distinguished from a "collateral" descendant, which would be from the
line of a brother, sister, aunt or uncle.
Descendant
"Those persons who are in the blood stream of the ancestor. Term means
those descended from another, persons who proceed from a body of another
such as a child or grandchild, to the remotest degree; it is the
opposite of "ascendants".
Basssett v. Merlin, Inc. Fla. App., 304 SO.2d 543,544
In the plural, the term means issue, offspring or posterity in general.
Also, all those to whom an estate descends, whether it be in a direct or
collateral line from the intestate."
-
Gjest
Re: "Direct Descendant"
In a message dated 3/19/2005 1:41:58 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us writes:
http://www.legal-explanations.com/defin ... endant.htm
_http://www.legal-explanations.com/definitions/collateral-descendant.htm_
(http://www.legal-explanations.com/defin ... endant.htm)
I don't think that terminology used by the legal profession has very much
bearing on what is correct. Much of the terminology used in law is distant,
far distant, from what a word actually means. Such words are used in legal
terminology to clarify for courts, etc., and are not meant to be used in the
normal world.
Word in point: moot. What does it mean?
I am going to withdraw from this thread because I don't think it is really
too applicable to the study of medieval genealogy. I am starting to get too
much enjoyment from the argument itself.
Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas
hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us writes:
http://www.legal-explanations.com/defin ... endant.htm
_http://www.legal-explanations.com/definitions/collateral-descendant.htm_
(http://www.legal-explanations.com/defin ... endant.htm)
I don't think that terminology used by the legal profession has very much
bearing on what is correct. Much of the terminology used in law is distant,
far distant, from what a word actually means. Such words are used in legal
terminology to clarify for courts, etc., and are not meant to be used in the
normal world.
Word in point: moot. What does it mean?
I am going to withdraw from this thread because I don't think it is really
too applicable to the study of medieval genealogy. I am starting to get too
much enjoyment from the argument itself.
Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas
-
Tony Hoskins
Re: "Direct Descendant"
I am going to withdraw from this thread because I don't think it is
really
too applicable to the study of medieval genealogy. I am starting to
get too
much enjoyment from the argument itself.
Despite a little guilty participation in this silliness myself, I'm
with you, Gordon! Since it's clear distinctions between what people want
to believe words mean, and how they are most often (and frequently
imprecisely) used, and their legal, perhaps semi-archaic, but more
accurate meanings is lost here, time to bale. So, "outahere"!
Tony
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: "Direct Descendant"
Dear Tony,
You bring in a new term 'lineal descendant', which is not the same as
'direct descendant'.
I agree with Gordon Hale that the word descendant stands on its own and does
not need another word, if you have to add a word that should give some added
meaning.
Lineal descendant, a descendant of his/her line?....does that mean family
line and therefor male line of descent? Do you see that descendant says what
it means, a descendant in either full male line or a descendant with umpteen
female links as well.
If we have a direct descendant, that could/should mean in direct male line,
that gives room for an indirect descendant, a line with one or more female
links.
We are only talking about words but I do think words are important as they
should convey a message. Wasn't it Wittgenstein who said "Any thing that can
be said, can be said clearly?" And, to me, direct descendant is not a clear
or precise description.
Best wishes
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Hoskins" <hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 5:48 AM
Subject: Re: "Direct Descendant"
You bring in a new term 'lineal descendant', which is not the same as
'direct descendant'.
I agree with Gordon Hale that the word descendant stands on its own and does
not need another word, if you have to add a word that should give some added
meaning.
Lineal descendant, a descendant of his/her line?....does that mean family
line and therefor male line of descent? Do you see that descendant says what
it means, a descendant in either full male line or a descendant with umpteen
female links as well.
If we have a direct descendant, that could/should mean in direct male line,
that gives room for an indirect descendant, a line with one or more female
links.
We are only talking about words but I do think words are important as they
should convey a message. Wasn't it Wittgenstein who said "Any thing that can
be said, can be said clearly?" And, to me, direct descendant is not a clear
or precise description.
Best wishes
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Hoskins" <hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 5:48 AM
Subject: Re: "Direct Descendant"
These words from the Monticello Association,
http://www.monticello-assoc.org/faq.html#buried , are on target:
4. Who can be buried in the graveyard?
Burial is open to any lineal descendant of Thomas Jefferson.
5. What is a "lineal descendant"?
A person who is in direct line to an ancestor, such as child,
grandchild, great-grandchild and on forever. A lineal descendant is
distinguished from a "collateral" descendant, which would be from the
line of a brother, sister, aunt or uncle.
Descendant
"Those persons who are in the blood stream of the ancestor. Term means
those descended from another, persons who proceed from a body of another
such as a child or grandchild, to the remotest degree; it is the
opposite of "ascendants".
Basssett v. Merlin, Inc. Fla. App., 304 SO.2d 543,544
In the plural, the term means issue, offspring or posterity in general.
Also, all those to whom an estate descends, whether it be in a direct or
collateral line from the intestate."
-
Gjest
Re: "Direct Descendant"
In a message dated 3/19/2005 3:03:36 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
If we have a direct descendant, that could/should mean in direct male line,
that gives room for an indirect descendant, a line with one or more female
links
I don't think that we should discriminate between female and male lines by
assigning the term "direct descendant" to male line persons only. If you want
to do this probably you should say something like "a descendant in the male
line".
It always pays to kowtow to the ladies.
Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
If we have a direct descendant, that could/should mean in direct male line,
that gives room for an indirect descendant, a line with one or more female
links
I don't think that we should discriminate between female and male lines by
assigning the term "direct descendant" to male line persons only. If you want
to do this probably you should say something like "a descendant in the male
line".
It always pays to kowtow to the ladies.
Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas
-
John Steele Gordon
Re: "Direct Descendant"
<GRHaleJr@aol.com> wrote in message news:1e5.383e1a01.2f6dc997@aol.com...
But it often does add something. Ordinarily, the word "descendant" means
someone who is the child of the child of the child . . . of a certain
person. But in some contexts it might well be desirable to make sure what is
meant, so the adjective is added.
For instance, imagine the following conversation:
"So-and-so is a descendant of X."
"A direct descendant?"
"Yes, he's a direct descendant, a great great grandson."
Isn't that last a lot better than, "I said he was a descendant, you
blithering idiot"? Most of us, after all, prefer not to sound like Hines.
Whenever you open your mouth to speak you are doing much more than just
conveying information. You are also being human.
But you seem to have missed my larger point.
Your logic is impeccable. But when it comes to language, logic often has
nothing to do with the situation.
I repeat: words mean what they mean. Period, end of sentence. Language is
the most democratic of human phenomena, and definitions are determined
solely by the market, not by self-appointed linguistic Pooh-Bahs making ex
cathedra statements, however inarguable their reasoning.
Astronomers call all elements above helium "metals." This drives chemists
nuts, but chemists don't own the word "metal." Astronomers are perfectly
free to determine what the word means in an astronomical context, and they
do.
To give another example, double negatives are frowned on in English,
although they are perfectly acceptable in many other languages. The "reason"
usually given is that two negatives makes a positive. But while that's true
in mathematics, it is not in language. In English, double negatives are bad
syntax because they are bad syntax and nothing more. If a policeman were to
yell, "stop, thief!" to someone who replied, "I ain't done nothin',
officer," is there a jury or judge in the English-speaking world who would
regard that as a confession? Of course not. However unacceptable the syntax
in polite society, every speaker of English understands that the man is
denying guilt not admitting it.
I recall the joke about the pedant lecturing on double negatives and
explaining that "while two negatives make a positive, two positives don't
make a negative."
"Yeah, right," someone in the back of the class yelled out.
JSG
There is an old trick question:
How many legs does a cow have? Answer four.
If I call the tail a leg, how many legs does a cow have? Not five
because
my calling the tail a leg does not make it a leg.
Calling a person a descendant does not make that person a descendant, only
biology can do that. A descendant need not be embellished with extra
words
such as "direct". The word direct adds nothing to the value of the word,
merely elaborates it and is therefore unneccessary.
But it often does add something. Ordinarily, the word "descendant" means
someone who is the child of the child of the child . . . of a certain
person. But in some contexts it might well be desirable to make sure what is
meant, so the adjective is added.
For instance, imagine the following conversation:
"So-and-so is a descendant of X."
"A direct descendant?"
"Yes, he's a direct descendant, a great great grandson."
Isn't that last a lot better than, "I said he was a descendant, you
blithering idiot"? Most of us, after all, prefer not to sound like Hines.
Whenever you open your mouth to speak you are doing much more than just
conveying information. You are also being human.
But you seem to have missed my larger point.
Your logic is impeccable. But when it comes to language, logic often has
nothing to do with the situation.
I repeat: words mean what they mean. Period, end of sentence. Language is
the most democratic of human phenomena, and definitions are determined
solely by the market, not by self-appointed linguistic Pooh-Bahs making ex
cathedra statements, however inarguable their reasoning.
Astronomers call all elements above helium "metals." This drives chemists
nuts, but chemists don't own the word "metal." Astronomers are perfectly
free to determine what the word means in an astronomical context, and they
do.
To give another example, double negatives are frowned on in English,
although they are perfectly acceptable in many other languages. The "reason"
usually given is that two negatives makes a positive. But while that's true
in mathematics, it is not in language. In English, double negatives are bad
syntax because they are bad syntax and nothing more. If a policeman were to
yell, "stop, thief!" to someone who replied, "I ain't done nothin',
officer," is there a jury or judge in the English-speaking world who would
regard that as a confession? Of course not. However unacceptable the syntax
in polite society, every speaker of English understands that the man is
denying guilt not admitting it.
I recall the joke about the pedant lecturing on double negatives and
explaining that "while two negatives make a positive, two positives don't
make a negative."
"Yeah, right," someone in the back of the class yelled out.
JSG
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: "Direct Descendant"
Yep...
An "exclusively male-line descent" -- or even better "an agnatic descent
"-- is the correct terminology.
English 101 again.
A descent to an individual through both male and female ancestors is
also certainly "DIRECT".
DSH
<GRHaleJr@aol.com> wrote in message news:e8.f62e488.2f6de424@aol.com...
| I don't think that we should discriminate between female and male
| lines by assigning the term "direct descendant" to male line persons
| only. If you want to do this probably you should say something like
| "a descendant in the male line".
An "exclusively male-line descent" -- or even better "an agnatic descent
"-- is the correct terminology.
English 101 again.
A descent to an individual through both male and female ancestors is
also certainly "DIRECT".
DSH
<GRHaleJr@aol.com> wrote in message news:e8.f62e488.2f6de424@aol.com...
| I don't think that we should discriminate between female and male
| lines by assigning the term "direct descendant" to male line persons
| only. If you want to do this probably you should say something like
| "a descendant in the male line".
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: "Direct Descendant"
Hilarious!
Gordo, caught between a rock and a hard place, does his best to dance in
place and throws out a few MORE:
RED HERRINGS.
Deeeeelightful!
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"John Steele Gordon" <ancestry@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:kz0%d.33934$FB7.17634@fe11.lga...
| <GRHaleJr@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1e5.383e1a01.2f6dc997@aol.com...
<twaddlesnip>
Gordo, caught between a rock and a hard place, does his best to dance in
place and throws out a few MORE:
RED HERRINGS.
Deeeeelightful!
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"John Steele Gordon" <ancestry@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:kz0%d.33934$FB7.17634@fe11.lga...
| <GRHaleJr@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1e5.383e1a01.2f6dc997@aol.com...
<twaddlesnip>
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: "Direct Descendant"
Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary
Descendant: one who descends, as offspring from an ancestor
There you have it, no room for an uncle. An ancestor is an ancestor and an
uncle is not an ancestor. The word 'direct' before ancestor/descendant needs
to add something to the word (Gordon Hale said it already) as otherwise
ancestor and descendant are perfectly adequate words. Now the question is,
what does direct add?
If it does not add anything, why use it?
Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary
Direct : straight, straight-forward, by the shortest way, (forward not
backward or oblique) etc.
As John Steele Gordon says : Words mean what they mean.
Best wishes
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Steele Gordon" <ancestry@optonline.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 8:10 AM
Subject: Re: "Direct Descendant"
Descendant: one who descends, as offspring from an ancestor
There you have it, no room for an uncle. An ancestor is an ancestor and an
uncle is not an ancestor. The word 'direct' before ancestor/descendant needs
to add something to the word (Gordon Hale said it already) as otherwise
ancestor and descendant are perfectly adequate words. Now the question is,
what does direct add?
If it does not add anything, why use it?
Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary
Direct : straight, straight-forward, by the shortest way, (forward not
backward or oblique) etc.
As John Steele Gordon says : Words mean what they mean.
Best wishes
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Steele Gordon" <ancestry@optonline.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 8:10 AM
Subject: Re: "Direct Descendant"
GRHaleJr@aol.com> wrote in message news:1e5.383e1a01.2f6dc997@aol.com...
There is an old trick question:
How many legs does a cow have? Answer four.
If I call the tail a leg, how many legs does a cow have? Not five
because
my calling the tail a leg does not make it a leg.
Calling a person a descendant does not make that person a descendant,
only
biology can do that. A descendant need not be embellished with extra
words
such as "direct". The word direct adds nothing to the value of the
word,
merely elaborates it and is therefore unneccessary.
But it often does add something. Ordinarily, the word "descendant" means
someone who is the child of the child of the child . . . of a certain
person. But in some contexts it might well be desirable to make sure what
is
meant, so the adjective is added.
For instance, imagine the following conversation:
"So-and-so is a descendant of X."
"A direct descendant?"
"Yes, he's a direct descendant, a great great grandson."
Isn't that last a lot better than, "I said he was a descendant, you
blithering idiot"? Most of us, after all, prefer not to sound like Hines.
Whenever you open your mouth to speak you are doing much more than just
conveying information. You are also being human.
But you seem to have missed my larger point.
Your logic is impeccable. But when it comes to language, logic often has
nothing to do with the situation.
I repeat: words mean what they mean. Period, end of sentence. Language is
the most democratic of human phenomena, and definitions are determined
solely by the market, not by self-appointed linguistic Pooh-Bahs making ex
cathedra statements, however inarguable their reasoning.
Astronomers call all elements above helium "metals." This drives chemists
nuts, but chemists don't own the word "metal." Astronomers are perfectly
free to determine what the word means in an astronomical context, and they
do.
To give another example, double negatives are frowned on in English,
although they are perfectly acceptable in many other languages. The
"reason"
usually given is that two negatives makes a positive. But while that's
true
in mathematics, it is not in language. In English, double negatives are
bad
syntax because they are bad syntax and nothing more. If a policeman were
to
yell, "stop, thief!" to someone who replied, "I ain't done nothin',
officer," is there a jury or judge in the English-speaking world who would
regard that as a confession? Of course not. However unacceptable the
syntax
in polite society, every speaker of English understands that the man is
denying guilt not admitting it.
I recall the joke about the pedant lecturing on double negatives and
explaining that "while two negatives make a positive, two positives don't
make a negative."
"Yeah, right," someone in the back of the class yelled out.
JSG
-
Richard Smyth at Road Run
Re: "Direct Descendant"
Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary
Descendant: one who descends, as offspring from an ancestor
There you have it, no room for an uncle. An ancestor is an ancestor and an
uncle is not an ancestor.
I quote from the same source, Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary:
"collateral adj 1 descended from a common ancestor, but through a different
branch of the family. . . . . noun 1 a collateral relative."
There you have it.
Regards,
Richard Smyth
smyth@nc.rr.com
-
John Steele Gordon
Re: "Direct Descendant"
It is not hard to trump Chambers Twentieth-Century Dictionary:
"Collateral ancestor: a brother or sister of a parent, grandparent or other
lineal ancestor."
Thus "direct ancestor" stands in contradistinction to "collateral ancestor."
"Ancestor" by itself means lineal ancestor, but when it might be unclear if
one meant ancestor or collateral ancestor, modifying "ancestor" with
"direct" makes it clear. See what I wrote below.
You can argue that there is no such thing as a collateral ancestor. I agree.
There is no such thing in the real world as a collateral ancestor. One is an
ancestor or not an ancestor. But the PHRASE "collateral ancestor" DOES exist
in the English language, whether you like it or not. It is defined in the
Oxford English Dictionary, the greatest work in the entire history of
linguistics and it is known to everyone who has an interest in genealogy.
What you are doing is confusing two wholly separate things: The real world
object and the phrase by which it is denoted in the English language. That
is a notorious rookie error in linguistics, which is the discipline with
which we are concerned here.
Let me give an analogy. The phrase "tidal wave" is logically incorrect. The
phenomenon has nothing whatever to do with the tides. Thus, using your
argument, "tidal waves" do not exist in the real world. But a quarter of a
million people are dead today because of what you airily insist does not
exist. In this case, the phrase is being rapidly replaced in English by a
borrowing from Japanese, tsunami. But while it hides the fact in the decent
obscurity of a foreign language, "tsunami" is only marginally more "logical"
than "tidal wave." Tsunami means "harbor wave" in Japanese. Do they occur
only in harbors?
If you would like to refute my argument, please do so. I'd be interested to
hear what you have to say. But to repeat--yet once again--that logic refutes
me, is to--yet once again--fail to understand what I am saying. I entirely
agree, the phrase is logically indefensible, but the speakers of English
have decided to use it anyway, and that is that. The speakers of English are
absolutely sovereign here and, in linguistics as in law, "the king can do no
wrong." Logic be damned.
JSG
""Leo van de Pas"" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:000601c52ccb$fcf31720$c3b4fea9@email...
"Collateral ancestor: a brother or sister of a parent, grandparent or other
lineal ancestor."
Thus "direct ancestor" stands in contradistinction to "collateral ancestor."
"Ancestor" by itself means lineal ancestor, but when it might be unclear if
one meant ancestor or collateral ancestor, modifying "ancestor" with
"direct" makes it clear. See what I wrote below.
You can argue that there is no such thing as a collateral ancestor. I agree.
There is no such thing in the real world as a collateral ancestor. One is an
ancestor or not an ancestor. But the PHRASE "collateral ancestor" DOES exist
in the English language, whether you like it or not. It is defined in the
Oxford English Dictionary, the greatest work in the entire history of
linguistics and it is known to everyone who has an interest in genealogy.
What you are doing is confusing two wholly separate things: The real world
object and the phrase by which it is denoted in the English language. That
is a notorious rookie error in linguistics, which is the discipline with
which we are concerned here.
Let me give an analogy. The phrase "tidal wave" is logically incorrect. The
phenomenon has nothing whatever to do with the tides. Thus, using your
argument, "tidal waves" do not exist in the real world. But a quarter of a
million people are dead today because of what you airily insist does not
exist. In this case, the phrase is being rapidly replaced in English by a
borrowing from Japanese, tsunami. But while it hides the fact in the decent
obscurity of a foreign language, "tsunami" is only marginally more "logical"
than "tidal wave." Tsunami means "harbor wave" in Japanese. Do they occur
only in harbors?
If you would like to refute my argument, please do so. I'd be interested to
hear what you have to say. But to repeat--yet once again--that logic refutes
me, is to--yet once again--fail to understand what I am saying. I entirely
agree, the phrase is logically indefensible, but the speakers of English
have decided to use it anyway, and that is that. The speakers of English are
absolutely sovereign here and, in linguistics as in law, "the king can do no
wrong." Logic be damned.
JSG
""Leo van de Pas"" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:000601c52ccb$fcf31720$c3b4fea9@email...
Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary
Descendant: one who descends, as offspring from an ancestor
There you have it, no room for an uncle. An ancestor is an ancestor and an
uncle is not an ancestor. The word 'direct' before ancestor/descendant
needs
to add something to the word (Gordon Hale said it already) as otherwise
ancestor and descendant are perfectly adequate words. Now the question is,
what does direct add?
If it does not add anything, why use it?
Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary
Direct : straight, straight-forward, by the shortest way, (forward not
backward or oblique) etc.
As John Steele Gordon says : Words mean what they mean.
Best wishes
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Steele Gordon" <ancestry@optonline.net
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 8:10 AM
Subject: Re: "Direct Descendant"
GRHaleJr@aol.com> wrote in message news:1e5.383e1a01.2f6dc997@aol.com...
There is an old trick question:
How many legs does a cow have? Answer four.
If I call the tail a leg, how many legs does a cow have? Not five
because
my calling the tail a leg does not make it a leg.
Calling a person a descendant does not make that person a descendant,
only
biology can do that. A descendant need not be embellished with extra
words
such as "direct". The word direct adds nothing to the value of the
word,
merely elaborates it and is therefore unneccessary.
But it often does add something. Ordinarily, the word "descendant" means
someone who is the child of the child of the child . . . of a certain
person. But in some contexts it might well be desirable to make sure what
is
meant, so the adjective is added.
For instance, imagine the following conversation:
"So-and-so is a descendant of X."
"A direct descendant?"
"Yes, he's a direct descendant, a great great grandson."
Isn't that last a lot better than, "I said he was a descendant, you
blithering idiot"? Most of us, after all, prefer not to sound like Hines.
Whenever you open your mouth to speak you are doing much more than just
conveying information. You are also being human.
But you seem to have missed my larger point.
Your logic is impeccable. But when it comes to language, logic often has
nothing to do with the situation.
I repeat: words mean what they mean. Period, end of sentence. Language is
the most democratic of human phenomena, and definitions are determined
solely by the market, not by self-appointed linguistic Pooh-Bahs making
ex
cathedra statements, however inarguable their reasoning.
Astronomers call all elements above helium "metals." This drives chemists
nuts, but chemists don't own the word "metal." Astronomers are perfectly
free to determine what the word means in an astronomical context, and
they
do.
To give another example, double negatives are frowned on in English,
although they are perfectly acceptable in many other languages. The
"reason"
usually given is that two negatives makes a positive. But while that's
true
in mathematics, it is not in language. In English, double negatives are
bad
syntax because they are bad syntax and nothing more. If a policeman were
to
yell, "stop, thief!" to someone who replied, "I ain't done nothin',
officer," is there a jury or judge in the English-speaking world who
would
regard that as a confession? Of course not. However unacceptable the
syntax
in polite society, every speaker of English understands that the man is
denying guilt not admitting it.
I recall the joke about the pedant lecturing on double negatives and
explaining that "while two negatives make a positive, two positives don't
make a negative."
"Yeah, right," someone in the back of the class yelled out.
JSG
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: "Direct Descendant"
Dear Richard,
The subject is "Direct" not collateral. We cannot say as Richard Davenport
did
"Bela Lugosi made his mark on film by portraying one of Prince Charles's
most infamous ancestors.....Dracula is NOT and ancestor directly or
indirectly, he is fullstop not an ancestor.
You bring in another term "relative" the subject is Descendant (and the
reverse: ancestor)
We are talking about ancestors or descendants, not relatives, you are
widening the scope and so, I think, confuse the matter at hand.
Best wishes
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Smyth at Road Runner" <smyth@nc.rr.com>
To: "Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au>;
<GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 9:15 AM
Subject: Re: "Direct Descendant"
The subject is "Direct" not collateral. We cannot say as Richard Davenport
did
"Bela Lugosi made his mark on film by portraying one of Prince Charles's
most infamous ancestors.....Dracula is NOT and ancestor directly or
indirectly, he is fullstop not an ancestor.
You bring in another term "relative" the subject is Descendant (and the
reverse: ancestor)
We are talking about ancestors or descendants, not relatives, you are
widening the scope and so, I think, confuse the matter at hand.
Best wishes
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Smyth at Road Runner" <smyth@nc.rr.com>
To: "Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au>;
<GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 9:15 AM
Subject: Re: "Direct Descendant"
Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary
Descendant: one who descends, as offspring from an ancestor
There you have it, no room for an uncle. An ancestor is an ancestor and
an
uncle is not an ancestor.
I quote from the same source, Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary:
"collateral adj 1 descended from a common ancestor, but through a
different
branch of the family. . . . . noun 1 a collateral relative."
There you have it.
Regards,
Richard Smyth
smyth@nc.rr.com
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: "Direct Descendant"
Yep...
Smyth tries to throw in ANOTHER:
RED HERRING.
He and Gordo make quite a pair.
First & Second Banana of SGM -- at present.
"Collateral Relative" is not nonsense.
This belongs in the other thread, so I'm putting it there.
DSH
""Leo van de Pas"" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:000c01c52cd4$dcfa3080$c3b4fea9@email...
| Dear Richard,
|
| The subject is "Direct" not collateral. We cannot say as Richard
Davenport
| did
| "Bela Lugosi made his mark on film by portraying one of Prince
Charles's
| most infamous ancestors.....Dracula is NOT and ancestor directly or
| indirectly, he is fullstop not an ancestor.
|
| You bring in another term "relative" the subject is Descendant (and
the
| reverse: ancestor)
| We are talking about ancestors or descendants, not relatives, you are
| widening the scope and so, I think, confuse the matter at hand.
| Best wishes
| Leo
|
| ----- Original Message -----
| From: "Richard Smyth at Road Runner" <smyth@nc.rr.com>
| To: "Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au>;
| <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
| Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 9:15 AM
| Subject: Re: "Direct Descendant"
|
| > > Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary
| > > Descendant: one who descends, as offspring from an ancestor
| > >
| > > There you have it, no room for an uncle. An ancestor is an
ancestor and
| > > an uncle is not an ancestor.
| >
| > I quote from the same source, Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary:
| >
| > "collateral adj 1 descended from a common ancestor, but through a
| > different branch of the family. . . . . noun 1 a collateral
relative."
| >
| > There you have it.
| >
| > Regards,
| >
| > Richard Smyth
| > smyth@nc.rr.com
Smyth tries to throw in ANOTHER:
RED HERRING.
He and Gordo make quite a pair.
First & Second Banana of SGM -- at present.
"Collateral Relative" is not nonsense.
This belongs in the other thread, so I'm putting it there.
DSH
""Leo van de Pas"" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:000c01c52cd4$dcfa3080$c3b4fea9@email...
| Dear Richard,
|
| The subject is "Direct" not collateral. We cannot say as Richard
Davenport
| did
| "Bela Lugosi made his mark on film by portraying one of Prince
Charles's
| most infamous ancestors.....Dracula is NOT and ancestor directly or
| indirectly, he is fullstop not an ancestor.
|
| You bring in another term "relative" the subject is Descendant (and
the
| reverse: ancestor)
| We are talking about ancestors or descendants, not relatives, you are
| widening the scope and so, I think, confuse the matter at hand.
| Best wishes
| Leo
|
| ----- Original Message -----
| From: "Richard Smyth at Road Runner" <smyth@nc.rr.com>
| To: "Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au>;
| <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
| Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 9:15 AM
| Subject: Re: "Direct Descendant"
|
| > > Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary
| > > Descendant: one who descends, as offspring from an ancestor
| > >
| > > There you have it, no room for an uncle. An ancestor is an
ancestor and
| > > an uncle is not an ancestor.
| >
| > I quote from the same source, Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary:
| >
| > "collateral adj 1 descended from a common ancestor, but through a
| > different branch of the family. . . . . noun 1 a collateral
relative."
| >
| > There you have it.
| >
| > Regards,
| >
| > Richard Smyth
| > smyth@nc.rr.com
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: "Direct Descendant"
Hilarious!
Gordo pulls the Cloak Of Carefully Cultivated Ignorance down over his
head and goes into Blue-Funk Mode.
Pure, Rank, Unadulterated Sophistry.
Gordon Hale is correct. Calling a dog's tail a leg does not give the
dog a fifth leg.
Virginia, it just doesn't get any better than this.
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"John Steele Gordon" <ancestry@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:ZR1%d.9745$pD6.8694@fe10.lga...
<twaddlesnip>
Gordo pulls the Cloak Of Carefully Cultivated Ignorance down over his
head and goes into Blue-Funk Mode.
Pure, Rank, Unadulterated Sophistry.
Gordon Hale is correct. Calling a dog's tail a leg does not give the
dog a fifth leg.
Virginia, it just doesn't get any better than this.
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"John Steele Gordon" <ancestry@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:ZR1%d.9745$pD6.8694@fe10.lga...
<twaddlesnip>
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: "Direct Descendant"
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Steele Gordon" <ancestry@optonline.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 9:38 AM
Subject: Re: "Direct Descendant"
====What do you mean by trumping? You extend and bring in other aspects.
to have a collateral ancestor for two people you imply a third (Parent,
Grand parent or lineal ancestor). We are talking about two people an
ancestor and/or a descendant
===a direct ancestor means ancestor of some kind (two people, the ancestor
and the descendant) a collateral ancestor you need a third. We are only
talking about ancestor or descendant. Collateral is a red herring here.
with another person
modifying "ancestor" with
No, you do not make it clear. As you and I said, a person is an ancestor or
he is not.
You can dress it up with other words, but those words should have a meaning,
my maternal ancestor, my paternal ancestor, that adds meaning to the word
ancestor.
Direct does not. Some people (like myself) think it means 'direct in the
male line' others disagree with that. Direct does not make things clear, it
confuses.
sisters.
I agree.
==== I like it very much as it describes something specific. You describe
collateral lines of a family joint by a common ancestor.
It is defined in the
===== A word means what a word means. An ancestor is one person from whom
another person descends.
A collateral ancestor : a person from whom two (or more) people are
descended.
I think English AND logic stands. I still believe that "direct ancestor" or
"direct descendant" are terms that are used wrongly.
== Who said that tidal waves do not exist?
Tide has many meanings :
a time - a season - festival (Yuletide) - opportunity - trend - ebb and
flow - flood-tide - sea-water - a flow -
tidal wave : the tide wave - a great wave caused by the tide - improperly, a
great wave started by an earth-quake.
I don't see it is improperly - if you use flow or a flow with wave (what
else was it but a flow of water?) And so I think your analogy fails.
What other people say should be irrelevant, we should use correct terms not
terms open to confusion. English and genealogy are both specific and we
should keep it that way. In the past I have seen the terms half- and
step-brother/sister wrongly used as well. Just because 'people' use it in a
confusing manner, should we do the same? A word is word with a meaning, an
ancestor is an ancestor (or not).
Best wishes
Leo
From: "John Steele Gordon" <ancestry@optonline.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 9:38 AM
Subject: Re: "Direct Descendant"
It is not hard to trump Chambers Twentieth-Century Dictionary:
"Collateral ancestor: a brother or sister of a parent, grandparent or
other
lineal ancestor."
====What do you mean by trumping? You extend and bring in other aspects.
to have a collateral ancestor for two people you imply a third (Parent,
Grand parent or lineal ancestor). We are talking about two people an
ancestor and/or a descendant
Thus "direct ancestor" stands in contradistinction to "collateral
ancestor."
===a direct ancestor means ancestor of some kind (two people, the ancestor
and the descendant) a collateral ancestor you need a third. We are only
talking about ancestor or descendant. Collateral is a red herring here.
"Ancestor" by itself means lineal ancestor, but when it might be unclear
if
one meant ancestor or collateral ancestor,
======(ancestor is one persons ancestor, collateral is an ancestor shared
with another person
modifying "ancestor" with
"direct" makes it clear. See what I wrote below.
No, you do not make it clear. As you and I said, a person is an ancestor or
he is not.
You can dress it up with other words, but those words should have a meaning,
my maternal ancestor, my paternal ancestor, that adds meaning to the word
ancestor.
Direct does not. Some people (like myself) think it means 'direct in the
male line' others disagree with that. Direct does not make things clear, it
confuses.
You can argue that there is no such thing as a collateral ancestor.
====of course there is. I have a collateral ancestor with my brothers and
sisters.
I agree.
There is no such thing in the real world as a collateral ancestor. One is
an
ancestor or not an ancestor. But the PHRASE "collateral ancestor" DOES
exist
in the English language, whether you like it or not.
==== I like it very much as it describes something specific. You describe
collateral lines of a family joint by a common ancestor.
It is defined in the
Oxford English Dictionary, the greatest work in the entire history of
linguistics and it is known to everyone who has an interest in genealogy.
What you are doing is confusing two wholly separate things: The real world
object and the phrase by which it is denoted in the English language. That
is a notorious rookie error in linguistics, which is the discipline with
which we are concerned here.
===== A word means what a word means. An ancestor is one person from whom
another person descends.
A collateral ancestor : a person from whom two (or more) people are
descended.
I think English AND logic stands. I still believe that "direct ancestor" or
"direct descendant" are terms that are used wrongly.
Let me give an analogy. The phrase "tidal wave" is logically incorrect.
The
phenomenon has nothing whatever to do with the tides. Thus, using your
argument, "tidal waves" do not exist in the real world. But a quarter of a
million people are dead today because of what you airily insist does not
exist.
== Who said that tidal waves do not exist?
Tide has many meanings :
a time - a season - festival (Yuletide) - opportunity - trend - ebb and
flow - flood-tide - sea-water - a flow -
tidal wave : the tide wave - a great wave caused by the tide - improperly, a
great wave started by an earth-quake.
I don't see it is improperly - if you use flow or a flow with wave (what
else was it but a flow of water?) And so I think your analogy fails.
What other people say should be irrelevant, we should use correct terms not
terms open to confusion. English and genealogy are both specific and we
should keep it that way. In the past I have seen the terms half- and
step-brother/sister wrongly used as well. Just because 'people' use it in a
confusing manner, should we do the same? A word is word with a meaning, an
ancestor is an ancestor (or not).
Best wishes
Leo
-
Richard Smyth at Road Run
Re: "Direct Descendant"
Dear Leo:
You write: "Dear Richard,
The subject is "Direct" not collateral. "
For the second time, I direct your attention to the the following line from
page 13 of the first volume of Anthony
Powell's memoirs: "Owing to the Wells taste for 'Thomas' as a christian
name, I have never established with certainty whether descent from him
[Thomas Wells of Norcastle] is direct or collateral."
Can you and I agree on the following points? 1. That Anthony Powell was a
competent writer of English prose with a strong interest in genealogy. 2.
That he was using the word "direct" as a contrastive adjective and that to
understand its meaning in this context, one must understand the contrast
between direct and collateral descents. 3. That someone who failed to
understand what Powell meant by "direct" in the quoted passage could be
enlightened by the OED or by the Chambers dictionary entries for
"collateral".
If we agree on these three points, I do not believe that there is any
substantial disagreement between the two of us.
Regards,
Richard Smyth
smyth@nc.rr.com
You write: "Dear Richard,
The subject is "Direct" not collateral. "
For the second time, I direct your attention to the the following line from
page 13 of the first volume of Anthony
Powell's memoirs: "Owing to the Wells taste for 'Thomas' as a christian
name, I have never established with certainty whether descent from him
[Thomas Wells of Norcastle] is direct or collateral."
Can you and I agree on the following points? 1. That Anthony Powell was a
competent writer of English prose with a strong interest in genealogy. 2.
That he was using the word "direct" as a contrastive adjective and that to
understand its meaning in this context, one must understand the contrast
between direct and collateral descents. 3. That someone who failed to
understand what Powell meant by "direct" in the quoted passage could be
enlightened by the OED or by the Chambers dictionary entries for
"collateral".
If we agree on these three points, I do not believe that there is any
substantial disagreement between the two of us.
Regards,
Richard Smyth
smyth@nc.rr.com
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: "Direct Descendant"
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Smyth at Road Runner" <smyth@nc.rr.com>
To: "Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au>;
<GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 10:40 AM
Subject: Re: "Direct Descendant"
=====I think this is very clear, he is not talking about person A or B, he
is talking about the origins of a first name. Did it come from an ancestor
or an ancestral uncle or cousin.
Nothing unclear about this. Just because Richard Davenport calls Dracula an
ancestor of Prince Charles that doesn't make him one.
totally male line
====collateral descent - A and B descend from C - a totally different
animal not the one we are talking about, see subject line.
3. That someone who failed to
Best wishes
Leo
From: "Richard Smyth at Road Runner" <smyth@nc.rr.com>
To: "Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au>;
<GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 10:40 AM
Subject: Re: "Direct Descendant"
Dear Leo:
You write: "Dear Richard,
The subject is "Direct" not collateral. "
For the second time, I direct your attention to the the following line
from
page 13 of the first volume of Anthony
Powell's memoirs: "Owing to the Wells taste for 'Thomas' as a christian
name, I have never established with certainty whether descent from him
[Thomas Wells of Norcastle] is direct or collateral."
=====I think this is very clear, he is not talking about person A or B, he
is talking about the origins of a first name. Did it come from an ancestor
or an ancestral uncle or cousin.
Nothing unclear about this. Just because Richard Davenport calls Dracula an
ancestor of Prince Charles that doesn't make him one.
Can you and I agree on the following points? 1. That Anthony Powell was
a
competent writer of English prose with a strong interest in genealogy. 2.
That he was using the word "direct" as a contrastive adjective and that to
understand its meaning in this context, one must understand the contrast
between direct and collateral descents.
====direct descent - A is an ancestor of B I prefer it to mean in the
totally male line
====collateral descent - A and B descend from C - a totally different
animal not the one we are talking about, see subject line.
3. That someone who failed to
understand what Powell meant by "direct" in the quoted passage could be
enlightened by the OED or by the Chambers dictionary entries for
"collateral".
======The subject is not collateral! We should stick to the subject.
Best wishes
Leo
If we agree on these three points, I do not believe that there is any
substantial disagreement between the two of us.
Regards,
Richard Smyth
smyth@nc.rr.com
-
Richard Smyth at Road Run
Re: "Direct Descendant"
For the second time, I direct your attention to the the following line
from
page 13 of the first volume of Anthony
Powell's memoirs: "Owing to the Wells taste for 'Thomas' as a christian
name, I have never established with certainty whether descent from him
[Thomas Wells of Norcastle] is direct or collateral."
=====I think this is very clear, he is not talking about person A or B, he
is talking about the origins of a first name. Did it come from an ancestor
or an ancestral uncle or cousin.
He certainly was talking about a person; he was talking about himself and
his own research into his ancestry. What Powell stated is that he was
unable to establish whether his descent from Thomas Wells of Norcastle was
direct or collateral. He explains that the name occurred so frequently in
the family that its occurrence in his line in the generation or generations
after Thomas Wells does not constitute sufficient evidence that he, Powell,
is a direct desendant of Thomas Wells.
Regards,
Richard Smyth
smyth@nc.rr.com
-
John Steele Gordon
Re: "Direct Descendant"
Leo:
You are not ordinarily an arrogant man, but I have seldom read so
intellectually arrogant a post.
I must have missed the announcement. When were you declared to be the sole
arbiter of the English language, empowered to unilaterally declare the
meanings of all words and phrases, regardless of what other, and far more
competent, authorities state? That is exactly what you are doing.
The OED--by orders of magnitude the greatest work of lexicography the world
has ever seen--defines "collateral ancestor" as "a brother or sister of a
parent,
grandparent, or other lineal ancestor." Every dictionary I own--and that is
quite a few: I, unlike you, am in the language business, after all--agrees
with the OED.
But Leo van de Pas, whose native language is Dutch and who has no
credentials whatever in linguistics, has decided that it means something
else: "a person from whom two (or more) people are descended." That is what
the other billion speakers of English call a common ancestor.
The OED defines the adjective "direct" in this context as, "Proceeding in an
unbroken line from father to son, or the converse; lineal as opposed to
collateral, as a direct heir or ancestor." Merriam-Webster's Third
Unabridged--and every other dictionary--agrees: "Being or passing in a
straight line of descent from parent to offspring: lineal <only a collateral
relative, not his direct ancestor>."
But Leo van de Pas has decided "direct ancestor" means nothing at all, that
it is a mere redundancy that should be, and by his decree is, banished from
the language.
The fact that writers of the stature of Anthony Powell use the words in the
sense given by the OED matters not at all to the self-declared Pope of the
English language.
Leo, Hines is impervious to any logic but his own, but one such damn fool
is enough per newsgroup. Try to understand my point of view before
responding. I see no evidence whatever that you have undertaken that task as
yet. You merely keep reiterating what you would wish to be the case.
John
You are not ordinarily an arrogant man, but I have seldom read so
intellectually arrogant a post.
I must have missed the announcement. When were you declared to be the sole
arbiter of the English language, empowered to unilaterally declare the
meanings of all words and phrases, regardless of what other, and far more
competent, authorities state? That is exactly what you are doing.
The OED--by orders of magnitude the greatest work of lexicography the world
has ever seen--defines "collateral ancestor" as "a brother or sister of a
parent,
grandparent, or other lineal ancestor." Every dictionary I own--and that is
quite a few: I, unlike you, am in the language business, after all--agrees
with the OED.
But Leo van de Pas, whose native language is Dutch and who has no
credentials whatever in linguistics, has decided that it means something
else: "a person from whom two (or more) people are descended." That is what
the other billion speakers of English call a common ancestor.
The OED defines the adjective "direct" in this context as, "Proceeding in an
unbroken line from father to son, or the converse; lineal as opposed to
collateral, as a direct heir or ancestor." Merriam-Webster's Third
Unabridged--and every other dictionary--agrees: "Being or passing in a
straight line of descent from parent to offspring: lineal <only a collateral
relative, not his direct ancestor>."
But Leo van de Pas has decided "direct ancestor" means nothing at all, that
it is a mere redundancy that should be, and by his decree is, banished from
the language.
The fact that writers of the stature of Anthony Powell use the words in the
sense given by the OED matters not at all to the self-declared Pope of the
English language.
Leo, Hines is impervious to any logic but his own, but one such damn fool
is enough per newsgroup. Try to understand my point of view before
responding. I see no evidence whatever that you have undertaken that task as
yet. You merely keep reiterating what you would wish to be the case.
John
-
Gjest
Re: "Direct Descendant"
In a message dated 3/20/2005 9:35:59 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
ancestry@optonline.net writes:
Leo, Hines is impervious to any logic but his own, but one such damn fool
is enough per newsgroup. Try to understand my point of view before
responding. I see no evidence whatever that you have undertaken that task as
yet. You merely keep reiterating what you would wish to be the case.
John
I stated that I was withdrawing from this thread, and I have kept that
"promise". Your scathing abuse of Leo, however, brings me back.
A descendant is a child of another, who is that child's ancestor, and so on
down the line. If either the word descendant or ancestor is used in any
other sense then it must have a modifier, such as colleteral, etc.
In my opinion the modifier "direct" is completely unneccessary because the
simple word defendant or ancestor indicates that the connection is direct.
Why modify a word which indicates directness in itself by a modifier which
indicates directness? Just to add words to the statement?
Other modifiers are necessary when indirectness is present but the use of
such modifiers do not indicate the need for the modifier "direct" when the word
alone (descendant or ancestor) indicated directness.
Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas
ancestry@optonline.net writes:
Leo, Hines is impervious to any logic but his own, but one such damn fool
is enough per newsgroup. Try to understand my point of view before
responding. I see no evidence whatever that you have undertaken that task as
yet. You merely keep reiterating what you would wish to be the case.
John
I stated that I was withdrawing from this thread, and I have kept that
"promise". Your scathing abuse of Leo, however, brings me back.
A descendant is a child of another, who is that child's ancestor, and so on
down the line. If either the word descendant or ancestor is used in any
other sense then it must have a modifier, such as colleteral, etc.
In my opinion the modifier "direct" is completely unneccessary because the
simple word defendant or ancestor indicates that the connection is direct.
Why modify a word which indicates directness in itself by a modifier which
indicates directness? Just to add words to the statement?
Other modifiers are necessary when indirectness is present but the use of
such modifiers do not indicate the need for the modifier "direct" when the word
alone (descendant or ancestor) indicated directness.
Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas
-
rexjhotchkiss@comcast.net
Re: "Direct Descendant"
Cousin.
lostcooper@yahoo.com wrote:
lostcooper@yahoo.com wrote:
What WOULD be the term for a person to whom an ancestor was closely
related - such as a brother or sister? You share a genetic history
albeit to a lesser extent than with your actual ancestors.
-
rexjhotchkiss@comcast.net
Re: "Direct Descendant"
Cousin for the most part or nth great aunt or uncle.
lostcooper@yahoo.com wrote:
lostcooper@yahoo.com wrote:
What WOULD be the term for a person to whom an ancestor was closely
related - such as a brother or sister? You share a genetic history
albeit to a lesser extent than with your actual ancestors.
-
John Steele Gordon
Re: "Direct Descendant"
<GRHaleJr@aol.com> wrote in message news:1a6.342594c4.2f6efaa7@aol.com...
Indeed, when no modifier is needed, using one would be adding verbiage
without adding meaning. "Elder William Brewster is my ancestor." says it
all.
But, "Elder William Brewster is a collateral ancestor of yours, right?" "No,
he's a direct ancestor, he's my 11th great grandfather." There the word
"direct" is being used, quite properly, to emphasize the nature of the
relationship in contradistinction to the word "collateral." If you were to
say, "No, he's my ancestor . . . ." it would sound wrong to the ear. That's
just not how we say things in the English language (or most others, for that
matter). No playwright--at least no playwright who wants people to come to
his plays, as opposed to playwrights who would rather be "right" than be
rich--would put those words in a character's mouth.
Let me give another example of how strict "logic" just doesn't apply to
language in many cases. "Are you going to watch the game this evening?" "No,
I'm not. I'm going out to dinner with friends." The "I'm not," logically,
is entirely unnecessary, sheer repetition of the information conveyed by the
word "no." But it is also entirely conventional in the English language to
say, "no, I'm not" or "yes, I am" to soften the abruptness of an unadorned
yes or no. You use that locution many times a day and it has probably never
occurred to you not
to (nor should it, it's perfectly good English).
Perhaps being trained to write journalism, you were taught to value
concision too highly. Take concision too far and you end up sounding like a
telegram, however logical. It is more important to be clear, and polite,
than to be concise most of the time. Words, after all, are cheap.
JSG
In a message dated 3/20/2005 9:35:59 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
ancestry@optonline.net writes:
In my opinion the modifier "direct" is completely unnecessary because the
simple word defendant or ancestor indicates that the connection is direct.
Why modify a word which indicates directness in itself by a modifier which
indicates directness? Just to add words to the statement?
Indeed, when no modifier is needed, using one would be adding verbiage
without adding meaning. "Elder William Brewster is my ancestor." says it
all.
But, "Elder William Brewster is a collateral ancestor of yours, right?" "No,
he's a direct ancestor, he's my 11th great grandfather." There the word
"direct" is being used, quite properly, to emphasize the nature of the
relationship in contradistinction to the word "collateral." If you were to
say, "No, he's my ancestor . . . ." it would sound wrong to the ear. That's
just not how we say things in the English language (or most others, for that
matter). No playwright--at least no playwright who wants people to come to
his plays, as opposed to playwrights who would rather be "right" than be
rich--would put those words in a character's mouth.
Let me give another example of how strict "logic" just doesn't apply to
language in many cases. "Are you going to watch the game this evening?" "No,
I'm not. I'm going out to dinner with friends." The "I'm not," logically,
is entirely unnecessary, sheer repetition of the information conveyed by the
word "no." But it is also entirely conventional in the English language to
say, "no, I'm not" or "yes, I am" to soften the abruptness of an unadorned
yes or no. You use that locution many times a day and it has probably never
occurred to you not
to (nor should it, it's perfectly good English).
Perhaps being trained to write journalism, you were taught to value
concision too highly. Take concision too far and you end up sounding like a
telegram, however logical. It is more important to be clear, and polite,
than to be concise most of the time. Words, after all, are cheap.
JSG
-
Gjest
Re: "Direct Descendant"
In a message dated 20/03/2005 19:51:15 GMT Standard Time,
ancestry@optonline.net writes:
I thought dinner was around 1200-1400!
Pg
ancestry@optonline.net writes:
dinner
I thought dinner was around 1200-1400!
Pg
-
Gjest
Re: "Direct Descendant"
My ever-so distant french cousins, call them uncles or aunts. Hence 'your
aunt was the countess Dracula, didn't you know?' Eh!
Ah! They mean my GGGGG+ Aunt was the countess Bathory.......now that is
confusing!
Yet my 'cousin' , von Hagen, the notorious corpse desecrator insists on
calling me his cousin, implying that we are VERY closely related......Hmmmm I do
like flesh, but It need s to be living!
Pg
aunt was the countess Dracula, didn't you know?' Eh!
Ah! They mean my GGGGG+ Aunt was the countess Bathory.......now that is
confusing!
Yet my 'cousin' , von Hagen, the notorious corpse desecrator insists on
calling me his cousin, implying that we are VERY closely related......Hmmmm I do
like flesh, but It need s to be living!
Pg
-
Gjest
Re: "Direct Descendant"
In a message dated 3/20/2005 2:51:15 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
ancestry@optonline.net writes:
But, "Elder William Brewster is a collateral ancestor of yours, right?" "No,
he's a direct ancestor, he's my 11th great grandfather." There the word
"direct" is being used, quite properly, to emphasize the nature of the
relationship in contradistinction to the word "collateral." If you were to
say, "No, he's my ancestor . . . ." it would sound wrong to the ear. That's
just not how we say things in the English language (or most others, for that
matter). No playwright--at least no playwright who wants people to come to
his plays, as opposed to playwrights who would rather be "right" than be
rich--would put those words in a character's mouth
Right. In this one case or in any like it the word direct would be quite
appropriate.
Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas
ancestry@optonline.net writes:
But, "Elder William Brewster is a collateral ancestor of yours, right?" "No,
he's a direct ancestor, he's my 11th great grandfather." There the word
"direct" is being used, quite properly, to emphasize the nature of the
relationship in contradistinction to the word "collateral." If you were to
say, "No, he's my ancestor . . . ." it would sound wrong to the ear. That's
just not how we say things in the English language (or most others, for that
matter). No playwright--at least no playwright who wants people to come to
his plays, as opposed to playwrights who would rather be "right" than be
rich--would put those words in a character's mouth
Right. In this one case or in any like it the word direct would be quite
appropriate.
Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas
-
John Steele Gordon
Re: "Direct Descendant"
<GRHaleJr@aol.com> wrote in message news:68.51e26d0e.2f6f4d61@aol.com...
Which is probably why the term is defined in the OED. Because a word or a
phrase is proper to use in one linguistic circumstance doesn't mean it's
correct in all circumstances, if you'll pardon my stating the obvious.
JSG
In a message dated 3/20/2005 2:51:15 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
ancestry@optonline.net writes:
But, "Elder William Brewster is a collateral ancestor of yours, right?"
"No,
he's a direct ancestor, he's my 11th great grandfather." There the word
"direct" is being used, quite properly, to emphasize the nature of the
relationship in contradistinction to the word "collateral." If you were
to
say, "No, he's my ancestor . . . ." it would sound wrong to the ear.
That's
just not how we say things in the English language (or most others, for
that
matter). No playwright--at least no playwright who wants people to come
to
his plays, as opposed to playwrights who would rather be "right" than be
rich--would put those words in a character's mouth
Right. In this one case or in any like it the word direct would be quite
appropriate.
Which is probably why the term is defined in the OED. Because a word or a
phrase is proper to use in one linguistic circumstance doesn't mean it's
correct in all circumstances, if you'll pardon my stating the obvious.
JSG
-
Gjest
Re: "Direct Descendant"
In a message dated 3/20/2005 6:15:35 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
ancestry@optonline.net writes:
Gordon Hale agrees with me, Leo. You are now totally alone.
Oops, you went to far. I agreed with you for one case, and cases exactly
like it. I still think that the modifiers, whatever they are, should only be
used when needed to make perfectly clear what is meant. Actually it is not
right to say that someone is your ancestor if the person is a great aunt,
uncle, cousin, etc. Such people should be referred to as relatives or kin, not as
ancestors. Calling them ancestors is a complete error. Your ancestors had
a role in procreating you or your other ancestors. They can be male or
female.
Leo is right in what he says. When specific situations are brought up it
may be necessary to use modifiers but usually not.
Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas
ancestry@optonline.net writes:
Gordon Hale agrees with me, Leo. You are now totally alone.
Oops, you went to far. I agreed with you for one case, and cases exactly
like it. I still think that the modifiers, whatever they are, should only be
used when needed to make perfectly clear what is meant. Actually it is not
right to say that someone is your ancestor if the person is a great aunt,
uncle, cousin, etc. Such people should be referred to as relatives or kin, not as
ancestors. Calling them ancestors is a complete error. Your ancestors had
a role in procreating you or your other ancestors. They can be male or
female.
Leo is right in what he says. When specific situations are brought up it
may be necessary to use modifiers but usually not.
Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas
-
Gjest
Re: "Direct Descendant"
John Steele Gordon wrote:
What you are doing is confusing two wholly separate things: The real
world
I recall an anecdote from my first linguistics class that demonstrated
this...in an argument about cultural relativity and the intrinsic worth
of all languages, the Englishwoman asserted that English is actually
superior, as anyone could plainly see, because in English "water" IS
water.
What you are doing is confusing two wholly separate things: The real
world
object and the phrase by which it is denoted in the English language.
That
is a notorious rookie error in linguistics, which is the discipline
with
which we are concerned here.
I recall an anecdote from my first linguistics class that demonstrated
this...in an argument about cultural relativity and the intrinsic worth
of all languages, the Englishwoman asserted that English is actually
superior, as anyone could plainly see, because in English "water" IS
water.
-
Tony Hoskins
Re: "Direct Descendant"
Since this is a forum for genealogy, not linguistics, could you please
take the
rest of this discussion somewhere else?
Ditto-issimo!
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: "Direct Descendant"
Good!
We have put paid to this silly-buggers, sophistic, little linguistic
contretemps and red herring -- having nothing whatsoever to do with
Genealogy.
It has been scotched.
Further, John Steele Gordon, AKA 'Gordo The Clown' of SGM, has crawled
back into his hole in North Salem, New York -- and shut his pie hole --
thereby ending the continuous stream of disingenuous and duplicitous
sophistry we saw flowing from it -- like unto a ruptured Main Sewer Pipe
under a major New York City Thoroughfare.
God's On His Throne....
And:
All's Well That Ends Well....
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
DSH
-------------------------------------
Excellent Point by WAR....
Vide infra.
Let's get back to GENEALOGY and away from the silly-buggers, irrelevant
chatter about LINGUISTICS -- another field entirely.
Genealogists are certainly allowed, indeed ENCOURAGED, to develop their
own terms of art, professional vocabulary and discrete, well-formulated
language befitting the work they do -- just as in any other PROFESSION.
That is the Principal Error Gordo The Clown is making -- and continuing
to beat the drum about -- and it leads to yet another PRATFALL for John
Steele Gordon ---- one in a long and continuing series of such amusing
PRATFALLS on SGM.
KAWHOMP!!!
KERSPLAT!!!
The fact that the General Public may use the words ANCESTOR and
DESCENDANT in a very sloppy, generic and casual way has nothing
whatsoever to do with how WE as GENEALOGISTS, whether Professionals or
Amateurs, should be using those words.
For Genealogists in 2005 the words ANCESTOR and DESCENDANT require a
direct, genetic link. ******
Therefore a competent Genealogist, whether Professional or Amateur,
should never use oxymorons or gibberish such as the amusing compounds
"DIRECT DESCENDANT" or "COLLATERAL ANCESTOR" -- as, for the
genealogically literate, ALL ancestors are DIRECT, NOT "Collateral" and
ALL descendants are DIRECT -- NEVER "Indirect".
Gordo has roundly confused GENEALOGY with LINGUISTICS, mixed in a
generous component of PURE SOPHISTRY and DEMAGOGUERY, such as his
hilarious Red Herring about Columbus and the American Indians, spiced up
the mix with a bit of Creative Charlatanry and Seductive
Intimidation ---- and then presented the credible, sometimes gullible,
members of SGM with a pot of sophistic drivel -- improperly confusing
GENEALOGY and LINGUISTICS -- two quite separate disciplines.
However, the entire charade has been Great Fun to watch ---- as Gordo
plays the clown, his assigned role on SGM, confuses a number of gullible
and naive people in the process -- and poisons the well for clarity,
conciseness and coherence in Genealogy for a few more years -- and
thousands of other people.
But, now that Gordo has had his fun and has entertained us all, it's
time for him to wipe off the grease paint, take off the bulbous nose and
the fright wig and get back to his regular scribbling for Forbes
Magazine.
Yes, let's get back to GENEALOGY ---- and let those who want to play
games with LINGUISTICS gravitate to a LINGUISTICS group -- where they
can play with words, make mud pies and throw them at each other,
demagogue to their little hearts' content and play the clown 'til they
drop from exhaustion.
How Sweet It Is!
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
Deus Vult.
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
<WmAddams@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:mrlt31110n0o5m0ov2avudcd8skjbvldnc@4ax.com...
| On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 16:56:48 -0500, "John Steele Gordon"
| <ancestry@optonline.net> wrote:
|
| >No, I am simply trying to get across an elementary point of
| >LINGUISTICS that you will not listen to.
|
| Since this is a forum for genealogy, not linguistics, could you please
| take the rest of this discussion somewhere else?
We have put paid to this silly-buggers, sophistic, little linguistic
contretemps and red herring -- having nothing whatsoever to do with
Genealogy.
It has been scotched.
Further, John Steele Gordon, AKA 'Gordo The Clown' of SGM, has crawled
back into his hole in North Salem, New York -- and shut his pie hole --
thereby ending the continuous stream of disingenuous and duplicitous
sophistry we saw flowing from it -- like unto a ruptured Main Sewer Pipe
under a major New York City Thoroughfare.
God's On His Throne....
And:
All's Well That Ends Well....
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
DSH
-------------------------------------
Excellent Point by WAR....
Vide infra.
Let's get back to GENEALOGY and away from the silly-buggers, irrelevant
chatter about LINGUISTICS -- another field entirely.
Genealogists are certainly allowed, indeed ENCOURAGED, to develop their
own terms of art, professional vocabulary and discrete, well-formulated
language befitting the work they do -- just as in any other PROFESSION.
That is the Principal Error Gordo The Clown is making -- and continuing
to beat the drum about -- and it leads to yet another PRATFALL for John
Steele Gordon ---- one in a long and continuing series of such amusing
PRATFALLS on SGM.
KAWHOMP!!!
KERSPLAT!!!
The fact that the General Public may use the words ANCESTOR and
DESCENDANT in a very sloppy, generic and casual way has nothing
whatsoever to do with how WE as GENEALOGISTS, whether Professionals or
Amateurs, should be using those words.
For Genealogists in 2005 the words ANCESTOR and DESCENDANT require a
direct, genetic link. ******
Therefore a competent Genealogist, whether Professional or Amateur,
should never use oxymorons or gibberish such as the amusing compounds
"DIRECT DESCENDANT" or "COLLATERAL ANCESTOR" -- as, for the
genealogically literate, ALL ancestors are DIRECT, NOT "Collateral" and
ALL descendants are DIRECT -- NEVER "Indirect".
Gordo has roundly confused GENEALOGY with LINGUISTICS, mixed in a
generous component of PURE SOPHISTRY and DEMAGOGUERY, such as his
hilarious Red Herring about Columbus and the American Indians, spiced up
the mix with a bit of Creative Charlatanry and Seductive
Intimidation ---- and then presented the credible, sometimes gullible,
members of SGM with a pot of sophistic drivel -- improperly confusing
GENEALOGY and LINGUISTICS -- two quite separate disciplines.
However, the entire charade has been Great Fun to watch ---- as Gordo
plays the clown, his assigned role on SGM, confuses a number of gullible
and naive people in the process -- and poisons the well for clarity,
conciseness and coherence in Genealogy for a few more years -- and
thousands of other people.
But, now that Gordo has had his fun and has entertained us all, it's
time for him to wipe off the grease paint, take off the bulbous nose and
the fright wig and get back to his regular scribbling for Forbes
Magazine.
Yes, let's get back to GENEALOGY ---- and let those who want to play
games with LINGUISTICS gravitate to a LINGUISTICS group -- where they
can play with words, make mud pies and throw them at each other,
demagogue to their little hearts' content and play the clown 'til they
drop from exhaustion.
How Sweet It Is!
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
Deus Vult.
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
<WmAddams@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:mrlt31110n0o5m0ov2avudcd8skjbvldnc@4ax.com...
| On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 16:56:48 -0500, "John Steele Gordon"
| <ancestry@optonline.net> wrote:
|
| >No, I am simply trying to get across an elementary point of
| >LINGUISTICS that you will not listen to.
|
| Since this is a forum for genealogy, not linguistics, could you please
| take the rest of this discussion somewhere else?