co-equal

[Jonathan Lighter]

A pundojournalist on NPR yesterday characterized Harry Byrd's position on
government as the insistence that the three federal branches must be
"co-equal."  Somebody wrote in to whine that "co-equal" was, essentially, a
stuipidism for "equal."

The PJ replied confidently that "equal" correctly applies only to pairs.
Since there are more than two involved, "co-equal" is the correct in this
context.  (You know, as in "all men are created  co-equal.")

In fact, "co-equal" goes back to the 15th C. The OED entry provides no
support for the claim that its correct application is exclusively to groups
of three or more. It is, essentially, merely an emphatic kind of "equal."
What is "co-equal" is absolutely equal in all relevant characteristics, even
if one might claim theoretically that it is not or should not be. (At least
that's my rationalization. Personally, I prefer "equal.")

A quick scan of the longer entry on "equal" reveals no support for
the restriction of the word to pairs.

Q: Which position, the listener's or the PJ's, is the sillier? (It's a trick
question: NPR's decision to air the dispute is the winner here.)

JL

--
"If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle the truth."

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