Fw: "Direct Descendant"

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Leo van de Pas

Fw: "Direct Descendant"

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 20 mar 2005 21:30:02

Is the subject further being muddled by John Steele Gordon? See my question
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







John Steele Gordon

Re: "Direct Descendant"

Legg inn av John Steele Gordon » 20 mar 2005 22:56:48

""Leo van de Pas"" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:001201c52d8b$897b7240$c3b4fea9@email...

But, "Elder William Brewster is a collateral ancestor of yours, right?"
=====Is the word _is_ wrongly used?

You'll have to ask Bill Clinton on that; he's the expert on "is."

Should it be "Elder William Brewster has
he a collateral ancestor _with_ you?"

No it shouldn't be. That is simply not how speakers of English express the
question. What they say--with or without your permission or the sanction of
logic--is what I wrote.

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.

Can you please stop beating this very dead horse, Leo? For the tenth time:
your logic is impeccable, but logic has nothing to do with the case. Much of
language is arbitrary. It's Henri premier, but Henri deux, trois, etc. Why?
Because it is, that's why. Logic has nothing to do with it, that's just how
they do it in French.

"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.

See my other post, I don't think that's what the OED meant at all. They were
using an old-fashioned locution.

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.

Then why does the OED define the term? because people use the term, that's
why. They don't need your permission to use a term to mean a certain thing.
If you don't like it, you are cheerfully invited to lump it. You're out
voted, and that's what counts. The only thing that counts: English is
perfect democracy.

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.

What the OED says: an ancestor is a lineal ancestor, a collateral ancestor
is a brother or sister of a lineal ancestor. And yes, I know, that's not
logical. It just happens to be good English, just as kings in French being
numbered the way they are


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.

Yes, except we don't happen to say it that way when we are correcting a
misimpression expressed in an adjective. We use a contrary adjective to
emphasize what is correct. You yourself probably do that many times a week
with any number of words and without any cognitive dissonance. It is only
with the word "ancestor" that you insist that logic and logic alone must
control meaning. It still doesn't, Leo. Words mean what they mean, always
have, always will.

If you would like to continue this discussion, please do me a favor: address
MY point, that logic does not control language. Do you agree with that point
or disagree with it and if so why? Your point has been made, and made, and
made, and made and it's still wrong for reasons I have given six ways from
Sunday. Please address MY point now.

John are you going overboard?

No, I am simply trying to get across an elementary point of LINGUISTICS that
you will not listen to.

JSG

Gjest

Re: "Direct Descendant"

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 mar 2005 15:19:26

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?

D. Spencer Hines

Re: "Direct Descendant"

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 21 mar 2005 19:50:02

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 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?

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»