Relative, related, relevant?

[Joel S. Berson]

  Perhaps I wasn't clear--I should have written simply

"Relative"???!!!

(That is, my question wasn't really about which was better, "related"
or "relevant"; it was about the error of "relative".)

Joel


At 3/9/2006 03:54 PM, you wrote:
>---------------------- Information from the mail header
>-----------------------
>Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
>Poster:       Wilson Gray <hwgray at GMAIL.COM>
>Subject:      Re: Relative, related, relevant?
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>"Relative"?! My vote is for "relevant."
>
>-Wilson
>
>On 3/9/06, Joel S. Berson <Berson at att.net> wrote:
> >
> > ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> > -----------------------
> > Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> > Poster:       "Joel S. Berson" <Berson at ATT.NET>
> > Subject:      Relative, related, relevant?
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
>------
> >
> > In the Boston Globe today, Bud Selig is quoted as saying of the
> > forthcoming book about Barry Bonds' use of performance-enhancers "I
> > will review all the material that's relative in every way."
> >
> > Relative?  Or should this be "related" or "relevant"?
> >
> > Joel
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> >
>
>------------------------------------------------------------
>The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org