[Ads-l] Reversed "replace" yet once again

[Chris Waigl]

Uh, isn't this one replaced as re-placed, that is, he placed the forged
document into the original document's place? Of course it was the original
document that was replaced by an altered document, but after alteration,
the document, now a forgery, was placed back, that is replaced, wherever
such documents go.

Chris

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Joel Berson <berson at att.net> wrote:

> But particularly blatant and clearly (to us prescriptivists) erroneous.
>
> Said in a local Boston radio news report about a (former) Suffolk
> University law student who had been found guilty of stealing a laptop from
> his school but managed to obtain the jury's verdict slip from the court
> files and alter it:  He "replaced the forged document".
>
>
> Thereafter he used the forged verdict slip to prove that he had been found
> innocent of the charge ... including to show Suffolk Law School to counter
> any questions about his admissibility that would have been raised due to
> the records of his arrest and trial.
>
>
> Surely he would not have wanted to "replace" (remove) his forged document
> to substitute for it the true document.
>
> Joel
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>



-- 
Chris Waigl . chris.waigl at gmail.com . chris at lascribe.net
http://eggcorns.lascribe.net . http://chryss.eu

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