see the intention of my original remark. In my original list of "Amongst the
descentants" was at least one other one, who was linked only by marriage. He
pretends to be so perfect and picking up all mistakes, I send one message,
then spotted one typo, corrected that one and send it only to spot another
error, and so that was corrected and send again. Don't tell me that with the
"generosity" of his spirit he ignored them, he did not see them, there is no
generosity in Hines.
To end this barrage is so easy, if you take into account that I re-act to
Hines's action. All he need to do is stop acting.and so there won't be
anything to react to. I think I have a perfect relationship with John
Brandon, he ignores me (most of the time) and I ignore him.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas .
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2007 10:25 AM
Subject: Re: For Hines to digest Fw: Sensible Crossposting To
Genealogical,Cultural, Military And Historical Newsgroups
Leo, Spencer is taking an (undue) advantage of his reading it a different
way:
When you wrote of Kirk Douglas AND descendants of Peter Stuyvesant as
being "amongst the descendants", without distinction, you were effectively
using "amongst" in both ways that I defined, simultaneously.
This is a strain that the word can hardly bear. In a limited sense this
can be right, since all of the people you named were surrounded by an
assembly of descendants, but some of them were part of this and one was
not.
So, taking further the example from Funk and Wagnells, it is like saying
"Amongst the trees were an oak, an elm, a beech and a house". This
literally is true from one narrow angle, as you read the original
statement, but not from a wider perspective, as Spencer and others read
it.
That he couldn't point this out as a collegial tip, to a busy & frequent
poster who learned English as a second language - while separately seeking
an end to the battle - is an ongoing problem for Spencer, but it need not
remain one for you or the rest of SGM.
Peter Stewart
"Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.1666.1188683274.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Read and digest it-----and then still say I was wrong.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2007 8:10 PM
Subject: Re: Sensible Crossposting To Genealogical, Cultural,Military And
Historical Newsgroups
Leo, "among" and "amongst" are used in a lot of ways that accord with
your understanding - for instance, Funk and Wagnells Standard Dictionary
gives as an example for its primary definition "a house among the
trees", where quite obviously the house is not suppsoed to _be_ a tree
any more than in your oringal post Kirk Douglas was supposed to _be_ a
descendant.
The word can indicate both "one of an assembly", as Spencer insists, and
"one surrounded by an assembly", as you meant.
In the context of dicsussion on SGM it is, in general, preferable to
stick with the first because the scope for misunderstanding is minimal.
But in the course of daily posting to a newsgroup none of us can be
always precise in language. It would be a dull place if this became our
highest proirity.
Peter Stewart
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message