former Beatle

[Ronald Butters]

Nor would I describe Radek Hudacek as a "former Czechoslovakian" simply because Czecholovakia no longer exits--I would do so only if he renounced his citizenship and became, say, a Canadian. But I would agree that this has nothing much to do with the meaning of "former" and everything to do with what one assumes that one's readers or hearers believe about what is most likely to have changed. Ringo is an easy case because pretty much everybody knows that the Beatles folded, he didn't.

On Jul 8, 2010, at 10:10 AM, Laurence Horn wrote:

> At 9:34 PM -0700 7/7/10, Arnold Zwicky wrote:
>> all over the media: the news that "former Beatle" Ringo Starr
>> celebrates his 70th birthday today.  it's clear what is meant; the
>> reference is to his having been a Beatle before they split up, oh so
>> long ago now.  so he was a Beatle and he isn't now, but that's not
>> because of a change in him (as with "former President"), but because
>> of a change in the Beatles.
>>
>> in tensed clauses, the verb "be" in the past is neutral as between
>> the ways in which it could come about that
>> SUBJ be INDEF-PRED-NOM ("Ringo was (once) a Blupp")
>> was true at time T in the past but is no longer true now.  so is
>>  once INDEF-PRED-NOM ("Once a Blupp, Ringo ...")
>>
>> however, for me
>>  ex-PRED-NOM ("ex-Blupp")
>> and
>>  former PRED-NOM ("former Blupp")
>> have only the understanding that the status of the referent of the
>> whole nominal has changed, and not that the status of the referent
>> of the predicate nominal has changed.  alas, i have no easy way to
>> pack the other understanding into a nominal.  other people seem to
>> allow both understandings for "ex-Blupp" and "former Blupp", with
>> the appropriate one picked out using real-life knowledge, the way
>> "once a Blupp" works for me.
>>
>> of course, i understand these people perfectly well; it's just that
>> i wouldn't say it their way.
>>
>> arnold
>>
> I'm not sure I see it.  Would you really not refer to someone as "my
> former colleague" if you moved away and, let's say, he stayed put (as
> opposed to the other way around)?  In that (former) case there's no
> change in him, but a change in the colleague relation brought about
> by your departure.  I think I could also imagine a widower referred
> to as the former husband of the woman whose death left him a widower,
> so Ted Hughes as "the former husband of Sylvia Plath" rather than (or
> alternatively to) as "Sylvia Plath's widower".  (The latter occurs
> too, of course, but for some speakers, "X's widower" is less likely
> than "Y's wife".)  For me, "ex-" is quite different, so Ringo can be
> "the former Beatle Ringo Starr", but "the ex-Beatle Ringo Starr"
> would indeed suggest that he left the group before they (literally)
> disbanded, and Hughes being called "Plath's ex-husband" wouldn't be
> possible for the widower sense.   It's true that I couldn't describe
> myself as the "former son" of my late mother or father, but once a
> son always a son, which isn't true for husbands (of dead wives) or
> drummers (of disbanded groups).
>
> LH
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org

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