CAPFlyer, no, not originally, as I was saying it has/had an order of precedence, the other way around. A descendent was the namesake of the predecessor. (F'risntance You can't have John Doe III before John Doe I.) Not any more, it seems, which isn't a big deal, I suppose.
k5083 wrote:
Actually JDK, the PR hack's usage of "namesake" is correct. It can also be used to refer to the original from whom/which the name is derived, and here in the US at least, that usage is probably more common than using it to refer to the later-named entity. In the US it also does not connote any denigration of the name-donor; quite the contrary.
Fair comment August, taking it as a US English usage, I accept the point. Still a good rant occasionally does you good.
Part of the reason for going off at the deep end is that English is an incredibly precise tool, that can be used to give all sorts of shades of meaning, but most users are stuck at the level of
like really awesome...
Whatever. Good that the guys at the squirty airplane toybox get to see a
real pilot and 'plane.
Cheers,
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
