| Author |
Message |
Roger
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 4:54 am
Post subject: Re: Pet hates: creditable = credible |
|
|
"The Other Fran" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131046829.141390.27150@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
William wrote:
The Other Fran wrote:
Surprisingly, there is such a word as "cloture" and it's almost apt, so
there's no need to get "haute" about it.
Ah, but is there such a word as "defencible"?
--
WH
In AmE, I believe the common string is "defensible", as the relevant
noun is "defense".
TOF
|
Whereas in Australia the relevant noun is "defence" and the adjective is
still "defensible" (or "defendable"). So, to answer WH's question, not
according to the Macquarie.
Roger
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
The Other Fran
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 7:38 am
Post subject: Re: Pet hates: creditable = credible |
|
|
Roger wrote:
| Quote: | "The Other Fran" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131046829.141390.27150@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
William wrote:
The Other Fran wrote:
Surprisingly, there is such a word as "cloture" and it's almost apt, so
there's no need to get "haute" about it.
Ah, but is there such a word as "defencible"?
--
WH
In AmE, I believe the common string is "defensible", as the relevant
noun is "defense".
TOF
Whereas in Australia the relevant noun is "defence" and the adjective is
still "defensible" (or "defendable"). So, to answer WH's question, not
according to the Macquarie.
Roger
|
If you're right, I'll have to give Pam Peters a tingle (I think Arthur
Delbridge has moved on). The Macquarie is supposed to be descriptive.
This is very common -- indeed, it was drummed into me circa 1970 by
someone who thought correct spelling was an absolute imperative.
||||
"The Congress has favoured a broad-based international coalition
against terrorism as envisaged in the UN resolutions and has maintained
that any international strategy in this regard "must be credible, just,
effective, sustainable and defencible in the eyes of the international
law and world public opinion."
http://www.dailyexcelsior.com/01sep25/news.htm
||||
||||
There is no bravery in planting bombs and maiming innocents, that is
the stuff of cowards. Should we accept the RAW atrocities against us as
an act of war or pure terrorism? Similarly the US Cruise missile attack
was hardly defencible, there is no honour in killing people in
so-called training camps without warning and without proven
provocation.
http://www.defencejournal.com/sept98/osamabinladen.htm
||||
||||
Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and
Constitutional Affairs (Canadian Source)
We think that the privacy interest at stake and the level of
intrusiveness involved with respect to warrants for DNA analysis is
much higher on the spectrum than would be the case with respect to
bodily impressions which would range from a fingerprint to tooth
impressions. Therefore, this is quite a defencible scheme in terms of
the spectrum.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/english/senate/com-e/lega-e/60eva-e.htm
||||
Here's a particularly emphatic and fun source
||||
The term 'fencible' may come from 'defencible' and means a defence
force. There had been fencible regiments raised for home defence both
for the Seven Years War and the American Revolution.[2] The number of
regiments raised, however, was nowhere near the number raised for this
conflict.
http://www.napoleon-series.org/military/organization/fencibles/c_fencibles.html
||||
And in similar fashion ...
||||
Howick, on which the village is based, was the largest of the fencible
settlements. 'Fencible' comes from the word 'defencible',
meaning 'capable of defence'.
http://www.dimdima.com/knowledge/travellist.asp?
tit=The+Howick++Historical+Village&cat=visit%20to%20New%20Zealand&pg=1
||||
And there's no [sic] here in the quoting of that little known
scribbler, J S Mill ...
||||
Some hints of a tendency to appropriate Christian insights are evident
in the essay on "Theism," Mill's last-considered contribution to the
philosophical evaluation of religion. Not only did he, as already
indicated, refer here to Christ as a "pattern of perfection for
humanity" but went further and invoked the Christian idea of hope (as
against the philosophical and scientific concept of logical proof).
"The indulgence of hope" in respect of unproven matters of religious
belief, he argued,is indeed "legitimate and philosophically defencible"
(CW, 10, pp. 487, 485).
Cf. R. Carr, "The Religious Thought of John Stuart Mill: A Study in
Reluctant Scepticism," Journal of the History of Ideas 23 (1962); K.
Britton, "John Stuart Mill on Christianity," in J. M. Robson and M.
Laine, eds., James and John Stuart Mill, Papers of the Centenary
Conference.
http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/rajapak1.htm
||||
But how old is this spelling? Surely it's just a recent development?
The internet is responsible for much that is ill with spelling, some
will be thinking even now. Read on, MacDuffs ...
||||
The Reply of Bristol to the Petition of Gloucester to be an Independent
Port, 25 May, 1584.
Source: Transcribed by Evan Jones (2001)
Manuscript: B.L. Harleian MS. 368/106
....
Gloucester is no place for trade of merchadize because they have
no Laufull warres meete to be transported nor shippes
servisable or defencible to transporte and retorne merchandizes
yf they had any :/
http://www.bris.ac.uk/Depts/History/Maritime/Sources/1584petition.htm
Mind you, whoever wrote this wan't much of a speller, so perhaps this
isn't reliable.
||||
There's also this though, and since this use of "defencible" is
archaic, it has to be borrowed from an original document.
||||
By April 1485, however, the king was writing about those who threatened
the peace he
had sought to establish; in June he reported rumours of invasion, and
the city council
ordered all defencible men to be arrayed on 8 July;
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=36327
||||
Case closed, I believe.
TOF |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Other Fran
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 7:48 am
Post subject: Re: Pet hates: creditable = credible |
|
|
Richard R. Hershberger wrote:
| Quote: | The Other Fran wrote:
Raymond S. Wise wrote:
Raymond S. Wise wrote:
The Other Fran wrote:
According to Mr Howard, the AFP is now in possession of "creditable"
information about a terrorist threat against targets in Australia. I do
hope the information is meritworthy, but I suspect he meant to claim
that it was reliable. Then again, I suppose meritworthy information
would be reliable, so perhaps the usage in this case was defencible.
Is this a malapropism or now a broadly acceptable usage?
TOF
The sense "Worthy of credit or belief ; credible."--as *The Century
Dictionary* puts it--was the first meaning of the word "creditable."
MWCD11 dates the word (and thus, that sense) to 1526. The Century and
the 1913 Webster's Revised and Unabridged show that sense as being
obsolete, but MWCD11 shows it as currently in use. So it's a revived
usage.
It's also shown as a current sense in my *Webster's New Collegiate
Dictionary,* copyright 1981 ("principal copyright 1973").
Thanks.
I guess I'll just have to live with it. Damn.
Just out of curiosity, how does its being an old usage make you have to
live with it any more than if it were a neologism?
|
It's the authenticity question. If my preferred usage is more recent,
it's hard for me to complain that someone has mistakenly tampered with
some existing word to attach a new meaning to it. If the usage of
"credible" is of more recent vintage than "creditable" perhaps it's
those of us who use it so, who have to argue that the language should
permit it.
As a matter of style, I still think creditable, used to mean "credible"
is unfortunate.
TOF
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Other Fran
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 7:52 am
Post subject: Re: Pet hates: creditable = credible |
|
|
John O'Flaherty wrote:
| Quote: | The Other Fran wrote:
According to Mr Howard, the AFP is now in possession of "creditable"
information about a terrorist threat against targets in Australia. I do
hope the information is meritworthy, but I suspect he meant to claim
that it was reliable. Then again, I suppose meritworthy information
would be reliable, so perhaps the usage in this case was defencible.
Is this a malapropism or now a broadly acceptable usage?
The use of 'creditable' is unremarkable to me (supported by both AHD
and M-W), but I'd never heard 'meritworthy' before. It seems
redundant, sort of.
--
john
|
I suppose I might have said "meritorious" but "meritworthy" is
unremarkable. I use it regularly. Sadly, I didn't invent it. The
Guardian uses it too.
||||
The Disability Rights Commission has conducted a study into whose
websites are the most accessible to people with disabilities and found
only five sites that were particularly meritworthy.
http://technology.guardian.co.uk/online/businesssolutions/story/0,12581,1205257,00.html
||||
TOF |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Other Fran
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:07 am
Post subject: Re: Pet hates: creditable = credible |
|
|
Roger wrote:
| Quote: | "The Other Fran" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131064709.202735.298960@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Roger wrote:
"The Other Fran" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131046829.141390.27150@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
William wrote:
The Other Fran wrote:
Surprisingly, there is such a word as "cloture" and it's almost apt,
so
there's no need to get "haute" about it.
Ah, but is there such a word as "defencible"?
--
WH
In AmE, I believe the common string is "defensible", as the relevant
noun is "defense".
TOF
Whereas in Australia the relevant noun is "defence" and the adjective is
still "defensible" (or "defendable"). So, to answer WH's question, not
according to the Macquarie.
Roger
If you're right, I'll have to give Pam Peters a tingle (I think Arthur
Delbridge has moved on). The Macquarie is supposed to be descriptive.
This is very common -- indeed, it was drummed into me circa 1970 by
someone who thought correct spelling was an absolute imperative.
big snip of eight examples of the use of "defencible", some rather old,
none Australian
Case closed, I believe.
TOF
I know that google counts aren't necessarily the most reliable data but
these figures are illuminating:
Australian sites "defencible" 15, "defensible" 69200, "defensable" 30,
"defenceable" 27
UK sites "defencible" 55, "defensible" 121000, "defensable" 228,
"defenceable" 80
all sites "defencible" 546, defensible 2540000
The Australian ratio (defencible:defensible) is almost equal to the all
sites ratio (0.000217:1 and 0.000215:1).
How would others interpret these figures?
Yep, case closed.
|
I'm glad you affirm that it's closed because the test is whether the
usage is eccentric or not. I have no idea how many the "69200"
instances on "Australian" sites of "defensible" were really
"Australian" and how many were simple duplicates or mirrors. My cites
were all distinct and in contexts unlikely to be eccentric.
I'm not contesting that "defensible" is also an accepted variant. The
question was "is there such a word as defencible". You affirm that
there is.
I just wonder why you needed to add what you did, as th case is just as
closed as it was when I posted last.
TOF |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Roger
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:07 am
Post subject: Re: Pet hates: creditable = credible |
|
|
"The Other Fran" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131064709.202735.298960@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
Roger wrote:
"The Other Fran" <fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131046829.141390.27150@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
William wrote:
The Other Fran wrote:
Surprisingly, there is such a word as "cloture" and it's almost apt,
so
there's no need to get "haute" about it.
Ah, but is there such a word as "defencible"?
--
WH
In AmE, I believe the common string is "defensible", as the relevant
noun is "defense".
TOF
Whereas in Australia the relevant noun is "defence" and the adjective is
still "defensible" (or "defendable"). So, to answer WH's question, not
according to the Macquarie.
Roger
If you're right, I'll have to give Pam Peters a tingle (I think Arthur
Delbridge has moved on). The Macquarie is supposed to be descriptive.
This is very common -- indeed, it was drummed into me circa 1970 by
someone who thought correct spelling was an absolute imperative.
big snip of eight examples of the use of "defencible", some rather old, |
none Australian>>>>
| Quote: | Case closed, I believe.
TOF
|
I know that google counts aren't necessarily the most reliable data but
these figures are illuminating:
Australian sites "defencible" 15, "defensible" 69200, "defensable" 30,
"defenceable" 27
UK sites "defencible" 55, "defensible" 121000, "defensable" 228,
"defenceable" 80
all sites "defencible" 546, defensible 2540000
The Australian ratio (defencible:defensible) is almost equal to the all
sites ratio (0.000217:1 and 0.000215:1).
How would others interpret these figures?
Yep, case closed.
Roger |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Other Fran
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:08 am
Post subject: Re: Pet hates: creditable = credible |
|
|
John O'Flaherty wrote:
| Quote: | The Other Fran wrote:
John O'Flaherty wrote:
The Other Fran wrote:
According to Mr Howard, the AFP is now in possession of "creditable"
information about a terrorist threat against targets in Australia. I do
hope the information is meritworthy, but I suspect he meant to claim
that it was reliable. Then again, I suppose meritworthy information
would be reliable, so perhaps the usage in this case was defencible.
Is this a malapropism or now a broadly acceptable usage?
The use of 'creditable' is unremarkable to me (supported by both AHD
and M-W), but I'd never heard 'meritworthy' before. It seems
redundant, sort of.
--
john
I suppose I might have said "meritorious" but "meritworthy" is
unremarkable. I use it regularly. Sadly, I didn't invent it. The
Guardian uses it too.
||||
The Disability Rights Commission has conducted a study into whose
websites are the most accessible to people with disabilities and found
only five sites that were particularly meritworthy.
http://technology.guardian.co.uk/online/businesssolutions/story/0,12581,1205257,00.html
||||
I wonder if it's very new or old. I can't find it in any of the online
dictionaries I checked. Not that the Gaurdian itself isn't a
meritworthy source.
--
john
|
I can't say. I know I've been using it for longer than I can be sure
about -- in high school certainly. There is a use of it in the House of
Reps of the US Congress in 1995.
104TH CONGRESS
Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
||||
Since the creation of HUD as a cabinet agency in 1965, a significant
number of major housing bills and miscellaneous smaller bills have been
signed into law creating additional programs, now totaling 240. Many of
these programs, while intended to serve meritworthy goals, have led to
program duplication, excessive administrative burdens, variance from
HUD's core mission to provide safe, decent and affordable housing, and
heavily regulated programs that lack flexibility to tailor local
decisions on the best use of limited program resources.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/T?&report=hr201&dbname=cp104&
||||
TOF |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John O'Flaherty
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:08 am
Post subject: Re: Pet hates: creditable = credible |
|
|
The Other Fran wrote:
| Quote: | John O'Flaherty wrote:
The Other Fran wrote:
According to Mr Howard, the AFP is now in possession of "creditable"
information about a terrorist threat against targets in Australia. I do
hope the information is meritworthy, but I suspect he meant to claim
that it was reliable. Then again, I suppose meritworthy information
would be reliable, so perhaps the usage in this case was defencible.
Is this a malapropism or now a broadly acceptable usage?
The use of 'creditable' is unremarkable to me (supported by both AHD
and M-W), but I'd never heard 'meritworthy' before. It seems
redundant, sort of.
--
john
I suppose I might have said "meritorious" but "meritworthy" is
unremarkable. I use it regularly. Sadly, I didn't invent it. The
Guardian uses it too.
||||
The Disability Rights Commission has conducted a study into whose
websites are the most accessible to people with disabilities and found
only five sites that were particularly meritworthy.
http://technology.guardian.co.uk/online/businesssolutions/story/0,12581,1205257,00.html
||||
|
I wonder if it's very new or old. I can't find it in any of the online
dictionaries I checked. Not that the Gaurdian itself isn't a
meritworthy source.
--
john |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raymond S. Wise
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 7:18 am
Post subject: Re: Pet hates: creditable = credible |
|
|
The Other Fran wrote:
| Quote: | Richard R. Hershberger wrote:
The Other Fran wrote:
Raymond S. Wise wrote:
Raymond S. Wise wrote:
The Other Fran wrote:
According to Mr Howard, the AFP is now in possession of "creditable"
information about a terrorist threat against targets in Australia. I do
hope the information is meritworthy, but I suspect he meant to claim
that it was reliable. Then again, I suppose meritworthy information
would be reliable, so perhaps the usage in this case was defencible.
Is this a malapropism or now a broadly acceptable usage?
TOF
The sense "Worthy of credit or belief ; credible."--as *The Century
Dictionary* puts it--was the first meaning of the word "creditable."
MWCD11 dates the word (and thus, that sense) to 1526. The Century and
the 1913 Webster's Revised and Unabridged show that sense as being
obsolete, but MWCD11 shows it as currently in use. So it's a revived
usage.
It's also shown as a current sense in my *Webster's New Collegiate
Dictionary,* copyright 1981 ("principal copyright 1973").
Thanks.
I guess I'll just have to live with it. Damn.
Just out of curiosity, how does its being an old usage make you have to
live with it any more than if it were a neologism?
It's the authenticity question. If my preferred usage is more recent,
it's hard for me to complain that someone has mistakenly tampered with
some existing word to attach a new meaning to it. If the usage of
"credible" is of more recent vintage than "creditable" perhaps it's
those of us who use it so, who have to argue that the language should
permit it.
As a matter of style, I still think creditable, used to mean "credible"
is unfortunate.
TOF
|
I'd say it's a question of what is in fact in current use. If a usage
is old, but is no longer in general use, then it would be up to those
who use it to defend that usage just as much as it would be up to those
introducing a true neologism to defend that. "Flammable" was either one
or the other when it was (re)introduced in the early 20th century. But
to claim that "flammable" should not be used now (among speakers of
American English) would be absurd--especially since the US government
requires it under certain circumstances.
The word is in current use, and it is *that* which makes it standard.
As I see it, your error was in assuming that a usage you disliked was
either a neologism or an error. It was neither. As for the question of
style, I don't understand the argument. Are you simply arguing that it
shouldn't be used because you, personally, don't like it?
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Other Fran
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 8:04 am
Post subject: Re: Pet hates: creditable = credible |
|
|
Raymond S. Wise wrote:
| Quote: | The Other Fran wrote:
Richard R. Hershberger wrote:
The Other Fran wrote:
Raymond S. Wise wrote:
Raymond S. Wise wrote:
The Other Fran wrote:
According to Mr Howard, the AFP is now in possession of "creditable"
information about a terrorist threat against targets in Australia. I do
hope the information is meritworthy, but I suspect he meant to claim
that it was reliable. Then again, I suppose meritworthy information
would be reliable, so perhaps the usage in this case was defencible.
Is this a malapropism or now a broadly acceptable usage?
TOF
The sense "Worthy of credit or belief ; credible."--as *The Century
Dictionary* puts it--was the first meaning of the word "creditable."
MWCD11 dates the word (and thus, that sense) to 1526. The Century and
the 1913 Webster's Revised and Unabridged show that sense as being
obsolete, but MWCD11 shows it as currently in use. So it's a revived
usage.
It's also shown as a current sense in my *Webster's New Collegiate
Dictionary,* copyright 1981 ("principal copyright 1973").
Thanks.
I guess I'll just have to live with it. Damn.
Just out of curiosity, how does its being an old usage make you have to
live with it any more than if it were a neologism?
It's the authenticity question. If my preferred usage is more recent,
it's hard for me to complain that someone has mistakenly tampered with
some existing word to attach a new meaning to it. If the usage of
"credible" is of more recent vintage than "creditable" perhaps it's
those of us who use it so, who have to argue that the language should
permit it.
As a matter of style, I still think creditable, used to mean "credible"
is unfortunate.
TOF
I'd say it's a question of what is in fact in current use. If a usage
is old, but is no longer in general use, then it would be up to those
who use it to defend that usage just as much as it would be up to those
introducing a true neologism to defend that. "Flammable" was either one
or the other when it was (re)introduced in the early 20th century. But
to claim that "flammable" should not be used now (among speakers of
American English) would be absurd--especially since the US government
requires it under certain circumstances.
The word is in current use, and it is *that* which makes it standard.
As I see it, your error was in assuming that a usage you disliked was
either a neologism or an error. It was neither. As for the question of
style, I don't understand the argument. Are you simply arguing that it
shouldn't be used because you, personally, don't like it?
|
Hardly. I'm not the English-speaking equivalent of the Academie
Francaise. I was merely expressing my own taste. Credible has one
distinct meaning, and creditable, apppranetly, two somewhat
overlapping. Why not use each where it is distinct rather than one
where it's ambiguous?
TOF |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in