in John Steele Gordon to make this silly attack in public.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au>
To: "John Steele Gordon" <ancestry@optonline.net>
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 6:13 AM
Subject: Re: "Direct Descendant"
Dear John
You disappoint me, see below.
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Steele Gordon" <ancestry@optonline.net
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 1:23 AM
Subject: 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 above is emotional, I do not see that I am an arbiter of any kind.
I
try to apply the English language and thank goodness American Gordon Hale
agrees with me.
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.
Collateral ancestor is a brother or sister of a parent etc.
I say that if two people are of collateral (side by side, running
parallel)
connection they have a common ancestor. You mean to say a Collateral
ancestor is a brother or sister of a parent does not have a common ancestor
with the person you talk about? Is it not six of one or half- a-dozen of
the
other?
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."
=====This is new, this is what I have been saying all the time, Direct
Ancestor/descendant is an ancestor or descendant in the male line. Goodness
you find something that agrees with me, nothing less than the OED!!!!
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.
=====If you read my message properly you would see that ancestor and
descendant are perfectly adequate words. If you add a word that word has to
add value to the description. If direct ancestor/descendant means in a
direct male line, I am all for it, but many people say that this is not
what
it means. They maintain direct ancestor or descendant allows female links
in the chain.
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.
=== I hope you have realised I am ignoring Hines. I had hoped you had
realised that I am trying to learn and by defending my understanding (even
Peter de Loriol in England agrees with me) counter arguments can be made I
am not standing on a pullpit preaching to the unwilling to see that a word
means what a word means.
Leo
>