Fw: "Direct Descendant"

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Leo van de Pas

Fw: "Direct Descendant"

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 20 mar 2005 23:21:02

John you are still muddying the waters.
See below.

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Steele Gordon" <ancestry@optonline.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 8:31 AM
Subject: Re: "Direct Descendant"


""Leo van de Pas"" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:002401c52d82$07a242c0$c3b4fea9@email...
Original I thought this message was sent to me only. I am very
disappointed
in John Steele Gordon to make this silly attack in public.

I'm sorry, Leo, I meant no offense, but I do think you are being
intellectually arrogant here.

===The above is emotional, I do not see that I am an arbiter of any
kind.

Then why are you declaring the meanings of phrases to be other than what
the
OED says that they mean? The OED can be wrong (I even found an error once
myself--a red letter day) but the burden of proof is on you.
=====First OED is infallible, then you find it agrees with me as far as

'direct ancestor' is concerned (an ancestor in a strict male line), and now
you admit there are mistakes.

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.

What you wrote was that a collateral ancestor was "a person from whom two
(or more) people are descended." That is not the same thing. You can have
a
collateral descent from, say, George Washington, but no cousins who are
descended from him, because no one IS descended from him.
====I may have expressed myself not clearly. There is no such thing as a

collateral ancestor. You can have one with another person, the expression
_may_ omit the ancestor in question.
=====I think you express yourself wrongly, correct me if I am wrong, but you
cannot have a collateral descent _from_ anybody, you can have one _with_.

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!!!!

In this case the OED, I'm afraid, is not agreeing with you, it is using
"from father to son" in the now old-fashioned sense, where "the male
embraces the female."
====Really? Do words in OED no longer mean what they mean? From father to

son suddenly includes daughters as well? Isn't it time you told OED that?
Another red herring?


This is much clearer in Spanish, for instance, where
the word for "parents" is "padres.") The usage was fading a hundred years
ago, when the OED was put together, and is now mostly extinct in English.
If
the OED meant male line descent, than "lineal descent" would mean agnatic,
which, as far as I know, no one argues for.
====We don't want to know about Spain. But if you want to bring in other

languages, in Dutch _voorouders_ includes males and females.
=====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.

Indeed it does, see my post to Gordon Hale, however, for an instance where
"direct" DOES add value.
====What is the value if direct does not mean 'direct in the male line'?

====I think we all know what ancestor means. It stands on itself and is
perfectly clear.
Now what does add to its meaning when you say collatoral ancestor? Is a
collateral ancestor an ancestor? I think not.

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.

I think "direct" here is a synonym for "lineal." A strict male line
descent
should be described as "agnatic," I think, to avoid any lack of clarity
as
to meaning.
=====You are bringing in other words, muddying the waters. First you bring

in OED meaning for direct as from father to son and reverse and now it
doesn't mean that anymore? And OED is still your bible?

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.

But when you argue that the OED is wrong and you are right, because you
have
"logic" on your side, you are not defending your understanding, you are
declaring yourself to be the fount of authority.
====I will never do that. You have already said that OED has been wrong on

one occassion and this occassion you say first OED says direct means father
to son, and now _you_ say they don't mean it.

I am sure you are trying to
learn, but you can only do that not by defending your understanding but by
understanding what the other person is saying. What I am saying is that
there is a lot more to good writing, and to language as a whole, than
logic.
You seem unwilling to admit that or even to notice that I have so stated.
You are not addressing my argument, you are reiterating your own.
=====I do understand that expressions can vary, an undertaker can overtake,

but not every overtaker is an undertaker. I do know that lots of people use
the term 'direct ancestor' but no-one, least of all you, have given a
correct acceptable meaning to that expression. English you seem to say may
be an illogic language, but I still believe it is _precise_ there maybe
funny expressions, but there is a difference between expressions and terms.
Direct ancestor, in my opinion, is a term wrongly used, as often is half-
and step-
If I am re-iterating my point is simply because, so far, you have not said
anything that makes me think you are right and I am wrong. Again give me the
name of a collateral ancestor of yours (George Washington can't be) who is
an ancestor of yours. The words direct and collateral must add something or
they are superfluous. I still believe you can have a collateral ancestor
_with_ another person. And I rather do without _ direct_ as an ancestor is
an ancestor, or he is not. If you say agnatic you have added something
significant to what you say, so far _direct_ does not tell you anything if
it can mean via male and female links. In which case _ancestor_ is perfect.
Leo

John Steele Gordon

Re: "Direct Descendant"

Legg inn av John Steele Gordon » 21 mar 2005 00:11:36

""Leo van de Pas"" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:000401c52d9b$59f2eac0$c3b4fea9@email...
John you are still muddying the waters.

Leo, you are trying to win the argument (and doing a damn bad job of it,
too), not trying to find the truth. You are still repeating again and again
and again your original argument, not responding to my criticism of it., You
still insist that words and phrases can only mean what they logically imply,
which is patently false.

=====First OED is infallible, then you find it agrees with me as far as
'direct ancestor' is concerned (an ancestor in a strict male line), and
now
you admit there are mistakes.

Don't misquote me. I never said it was infallible and I didn't say it agrees
with you. You misinterpreted what it says. Of course there are mistakes. The
OED is 10,000 pages long, double column, small type. But it is a work of
awesome scholarship, deeply deserving of respect, which you do not give it
because you prefer to wallow in error rather than change your mind. Your
loss.

====I may have expressed myself not clearly. There is no such thing as a
collateral ancestor.

Then why do dictionaries define the term? Someone hears the term "collateral
ancestor" and, wondering what it means, looks it up in any dictionary. The
dictionary says it means a brother or sister of a lineal ancestor, because
that is how millions of speakers of English use the term. But no, Leo van de
Pas has declared there is no such thing as a collateral ancestor, and
therefore there is no such thing and every dictionary is wrong because Leo
must be right. Please.

=====I think you express yourself wrongly, correct me if I am wrong, but
you
cannot have a collateral descent _from_ anybody, you can have one _with_.

For the ten-thousandth time, logically you are correct, but logic has
nothing to do with it. Why is that point so hard to grasp?

In this case the OED, I'm afraid, is not agreeing with you, it is using
"from father to son" in the now old-fashioned sense, where "the male
embraces the female."
====Really? Do words in OED no longer mean what they mean? From father to
son suddenly includes daughters as well? Isn't it time you told OED that?
Another red herring?

The OED was written more than a hundred years ago. Books don't change,
language does. A hundred years ago, "emulate" meant to vie or contest with.
Today, it means to imitate. Pedants can tut-tut all they want, that's what
the word now means.

====We don't want to know about Spain. But if you want to bring in other
languages, in Dutch _voorouders_ includes males and females.

This is exactly your problem. The point we are discussing is LINGUISTIC.
LINGUISTIC, get it, Leo? (no, probably you don't, alas).
=====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.

I have read your message properly about ten times now. How about you reading
MY message for a change?

Indeed it does, see my post to Gordon Hale, however, for an instance
where
"direct" DOES add value.
====What is the value if direct does not mean 'direct in the male line'?

Gordon Hale agrees with me, Leo. You are now totally alone.

====I think we all know what ancestor means. It stands on itself and is
perfectly clear.
Now what does add to its meaning when you say collatoral ancestor? Is a
collateral ancestor an ancestor? I think not.

See Gordon Hale's post. You just won't LISTEN, will you?

But when you argue that the OED is wrong and you are right, because you
have
"logic" on your side, you are not defending your understanding, you are
declaring yourself to be the fount of authority.
====I will never do that.

You have, in effect, over and over again. You have logic on your side, and
therefore what you say is correct. But it's not.

You have already said that OED has been wrong on
one occassion and this occassion you say first OED says direct means
father
to son, and now _you_ say they don't mean it.

I never said it meant father to son, I quoted what it said.

I do know that lots of people use
the term 'direct ancestor' but no-one, least of all you, have given a
correct acceptable meaning to that expression.

They give an acceptable meaning to it every time they use it, a meaning
reflected in the dictionary. Again, get my point, Leo, stop reiterating
yours. LOGIC HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CASE.

Direct ancestor, in my opinion, is a term wrongly used,

In other words, it is used in a way you do not approve of. But that doesnt
make it wrong, it only makes it illogical.

If I am re-iterating my point is simply because, so far, you have not said
anything that makes me think you are right and I am wrong. Again give me
the
name of a collateral ancestor of yours (George Washington can't be) who is
an ancestor of yours.

None of my collateral ancestors are my ancestors (ignoring the results of
cousin marriages). I freely admit that. THAT IS NOT MY POINT, goddamn it! My
point is when it comes to the meaning of words and phrases, nothing matters
but what is commonly agreed upon by the speakers of the language. Nothing.
Not logic, not experts, nothing. If enough people think a phrase means X,
then it means X and there is not a damned thing you or I or anyone else can
do about it. The phrase means X. And all the Dutch genealogists living in
Australia can climb Ayre's Rock and shout to heaven above that it shouldn't
mean X and it will STILL mean X, because the sole determiners of meaning
have spoken and have decided to be illogical. Get used to it.


JSG

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»