co-equal

[Jonathan Lighter]

You may be right _sub specie aeternis_ but whether the distinction is true
for all or most speakers is unknown.

It isn't, as the PJ insisted, a matter of contrast. The OED evidence fails
to confirm the view of either the PJ or the listener.  It implies instead
that "equal" historically subsumes "co-equal."  "Equal" always works, even
when "co-equal" doesn't.

JL



On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Mark Mandel <thnidu at gmail.com> wrote:

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       Mark Mandel <thnidu at GMAIL.COM>
> Subject:      Re: co-equal
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ISTM that "co-equal" generally means "equal in rank/power, with
> neither/none
> entitled to command the other(s)", while "equal" as a predicate is
> generally
> applied to magnitudes.
>
> As a quotation, "All men are created equal" doesn't bear on this question,
> unless (imho) the objectionable sentence alluded to it, e.g. by using
> "created co-equal".
>
> The noun "[X's] equal" -- "He is your equal", "We are equals", and whether
> or not extended with something like "in {that respect / all respects}" --
> is
> a different construction and likewise irrelevant.
>
> m a m
>
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 8:24 AM, Jonathan Lighter <wuxxmupp2000 at gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
>
>  ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>



--
"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