OT? or not OT? wasFw: "Direct Descendant"

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Leo van de Pas

OT? or not OT? wasFw: "Direct Descendant"

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 21 mar 2005 21:10:02

John Steele Gordon was pursuing the matter in a over the top manner and in
public
I was disappointed in him for doing this as I was the only beneficiary of
his explanation and it could and should have been done in private.

However, I believe that even though the conversation went into linguistics
it was appropriate on gen-med. Linguistic terms are tools used in genealogy
and if questions arise then they should be able to be discussed on gen-med.
When someone asks what is a third cousin four times revoved, it is also
appropriate that it is discussed on gen-med.

What should have been expressed more clearly, is that an added word not
always adds, it can also change. Ancestor is clear enough, collateral
ancestor changes the meaning of the word ancestor---it does not add. And,
again, as I was the only person benefitting from John Steele Gordon's
explanation, it could and should have been done in private, but that doesn't
make it Off-Topic on gen-med.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas

----- Original Message -----
From: <WmAddams@gmail.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 1:19 AM
Subject: Re: "Direct Descendant"


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»