"Neurotic, adj. sense 4, 1907, antedates 1917--

[Victor Steinbok]

That's a part of the confusion for me. But "neurotic ancestry" is
perhaps deeper--ancestry is a human "characteristic" but the phrase
shows a history of the disease, I presume, in the family. So does it
pertain to persons or the disease? A different interpretation (not in
the same context) might suggest that some symptomatic manifestation has
/its/ ancestry in neurosis. This one would be unambiguously 2., not 3.

     VS-)

On 3/6/2011 4:11 PM, Jonathan Lighter wrote:
> 2 and 4 seem to me to say virtually the same thing.
> But because 3 is applied to persons, the meaning is different.
>
> Cf.:
>
> 1. a neurotic symptom ('caused by neurosis')
> 2. a neurotic person ('afflicted with one or more neuroses')
>
> JL
>
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Victor Steinbok<aardvark66 at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> I'm somewhat confused by some of the distinctions between neurotic 2.
>> ("Of the nature of neurosis"), neurotic 3. ("Of a person: suffering from
>> or affected by a neurosis") and neurotic 4. ("Symptomatic of or
>> associated with a neurosis; characteristic of a neurotic").
>>
>> How does one classify "neurotic ancestry" (p. 480, 567) or "neurotic
>> family history" (p. 548) or "neurotic parentage" (p. 555)?
>> http://goo.gl/cGcBq
>>
>> I would expect the latter two to be 3. (or 2.??), but not sure about
>> "ancestry"?
>>
>> And if they do fall under 3. rather than 2., then should "neurotic
>> inheritance" ("hereditary descent" of "a truly nervous character") as well?
>> http://goo.gl/Hmsgm
>>
>> On the other hand, shouldn't "neurotic predisposition" fall under
>> "symptomatic of neurosis"?
>>
>> I am hopelessly confused...
>>
>>      VS-)

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