below.
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Steele Gordon" <ancestry@optonline.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 6:43 AM
Subject: Re: "Direct Descendant"
GRHaleJr@aol.com> wrote in message news:1a6.342594c4.2f6efaa7@aol.com...
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?"
=====Is the word _is_ wrongly used? Should it be "Elder William Brewster has
he a collateral ancestor _with_ you?" Either he is an ancestor or he is not,
if he has a common ancestor, i.e. has a collateral line with you, then he is
not an ancestor.
"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."
=====As from JSG's previous message, direct means (OED) direct in the male
(only) line. In which case an ancestor is an ancestor (which can have female
links in the chain) but a direct ancestor can only (OED) be in a total male
line.
Again, I believe that when a relationship between two people is discussed,
when the word collateral is used, it is obvious that one is not the ancestor
of the other, they have a common ancestor. In which case there is no such
animal as a collateral ancestor.
I would like John Steele Gordon to tell me who is his collateral ancestor
and who is an _ancestor_ and not by intermarriages where one person can have
more than one link.
If you were to
say, "No, he's my ancestor . . . ." it would sound wrong to the ear.
====Whose ear? He is my ancestor, three perfect words, expressing what the
situation is.
John are you going overboard?
Leo
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