Obsolescent? Already obsolete?

[Wilson Gray]

On Jul 30, 2005, at 4:07 PM, Laurence Horn wrote:

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       Laurence Horn <laurence.horn at YALE.EDU>
> Subject:      Re: Obsolescent? Already obsolete?
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
>
>> From today's NYT:
>>
>> The two Mr. Larkins ...
>>
>> instead of
>>
>> The two Messrs. Larkins ...
>>
>> -Wilson Gray
>
> Not to be picky, but (why not)...
> the former would be referring to two guys named Larkin, the latter to
> two guys named Larkins, at least as I'd infer.  Otherwise it would
> have been the two Messrs. Larkin.
>
> L
>

In the article, the reference was to two different guys named "Larkins"
and it referred to them as "The two Mr. Larkins ..." Personally, I
would have gone with "The two Mr. Larkinses," a la "[keeping up with]
the Joneses," if I felt that "Messrs." was too snooty or too
old-fashioned.

The article was about yet another racial Catch-22. Blacks trying to use
DNA to track their ancestry find that, in general, it's *still* far
easier to trace the family tree of a white ancestor smitten with jungle
fever than it is to trace the family tree of their black ancestry. In
this case, a black guy named Larkins discovered that, back in the day,
his ancestors were owned by someone named Larkins and he wanted to find
out whether the black Larkinses of today were kin to the white
Larkinses of today.

Sigh, No matter how you figger, it's hard to be a nigger.

-Wilson