post- facto?
Anna Skipka
"[The magazine] lost its way long ago, analysts said, unable to
navigate the mores of a post-Aids, post-feminist age."
http://media.guardian.co.uk/presspublishing/story/0,7495,1018378,00.html
My impression is that "post-" is used here to mean "after the
introduction of" rather than "after the end of." (AIDS is certainly
still around.) Am I alone in thinking this usage is (not to put too
fine a point on it) wrong?
-skipka
tomca...@yanospamhoo.com
> My impression is that "post-" is used here to mean "after the
> introduction of" rather than "after the end of." (AIDS is certainly
> still around.) Am I alone in thinking this usage is (not to put too
> fine a point on it) wrong?
AIDS is still around? More amazingly Magic Johnson is still around!
(he had a birthday yesterday)
dustbird
"Anna Skipka" <annas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:712e5608.03081...@posting.google.com...
It seems as if a useful distinction could be made. For "introduction of"
could we say post-alpha, or maybe post-limn, the latter indicating it has
been delineated?
Mike Lyle
Ex post facto, "post" can mean either. "Post-war" means "after the war
was over", while "post-antibiotics" means "after the introduction of
antibiotics". The context should usually make it clear which sense is
being used.
Mike.
CyberCypher
news:712e5608.03081...@posting.google.com:
It means "subsequent to" and does not necessarily indicate whether
the X to which Y is subsequent is over. If X is durative, like
feminism and AIDS, then it means "after the beginning of or
introduction of X". If X is transient, then it means that X is over;
the Korean War (of "the Korean Conflict" as it is sometimes called)
is still not officially over, so "postwar" in that case is
ambiguous.
W3NID:
Main Entry:post-
Function:prefix
Etymology:Middle English, fromLatin, from post (adverb &
preposition); akin to Greek (Arcadian & Cyprian dialect) pos
toward, on, at, Sanskrit paKca behind, after,later,
Old English of of, from, off * more at OF
1 a : after : subsequent : later *postdate* *postentry* *postnati*
b : behind *postfix* : posterior *postabdomen* : following after
*postconsonantal*
2 a : subsequent to : later than *postadolescence* *postclassical*
*postoperative* *postwar*
b : behind : posterior to *postantennal* *postcardinal*
*postocular*
Anna Skipka
The only references I can find that use the term "post-antibiotic(s)"
use it to mean "after terminating a course of antibiotics."
-skipka
Anna Skipka
> annas...@yahoo.com (Anna Skipka) burbled
> news:712e5608.03081...@posting.google.com:
>
> > From the Grauniad:
> >
> > "[The magazine] lost its way long ago, analysts said, unable to
> > navigate the mores of a post-Aids, post-feminist age."
> >
> > http://media.guardian.co.uk/presspublishing/story/0,7495,1018378,00
> > .html
> >
> > My impression is that "post-" is used here to mean "after the
> > introduction of" rather than "after the end of." (AIDS is
> > certainly still around.) Am I alone in thinking this usage is (not
> > to put too fine a point on it) wrong?
>
> It means "subsequent to" and does not necessarily indicate whether
> the X to which Y is subsequent is over. If X is durative, like
> feminism and AIDS, then it means "after the beginning of or
> introduction of X". If X is transient, then it means that X is over;
> the Korean War (of "the Korean Conflict" as it is sometimes called)
> is still not officially over, so "postwar" in that case is
> ambiguous.
This explanation nicely covers my example, but it does not seem to be
supported by your reference to W3NID, which gives no corroborating
examples. And I can think of many examples that contradict what you
say here: post-modernism, post-colonialism, post-classical,
post-structuralism -- all imply the overthrow of the previous
(durative) period.
Moreover, can it accurately be said that X is subsequent to Y if X
occurs during the reign of Y? Is this not an overstretch of the word
"subsequent"?
-skipka
Steve Hayes
I certainly find it strange. Woukld 1940 be "post-war"?
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
CyberCypher
news:3f3d9326...@news.saix.net:
> On 14 Aug 2003 11:36:27 -0700, annas...@yahoo.com (Anna Skipka)
> wrote:
>
>>From the Grauniad:
>>
>>"[The magazine] lost its way long ago, analysts said, unable to
>>navigate the mores of a post-Aids, post-feminist age."
>>
>>http://media.guardian.co.uk/presspublishing/story/0,7495,1018378,00
>>.html
>>
>>My impression is that "post-" is used here to mean "after the
>>introduction of" rather than "after the end of." (AIDS is
>>certainly still around.) Am I alone in thinking this usage is (not
>>to put too fine a point on it) wrong?
>
> I certainly find it strange. Woukld 1940 be "post-war"?
No. That war was in its first stages of fighting in 1940, and it
wouldn't even have been pre-war in the USA, which didn't get into
it until December 7, 1941.
The meaning of /post-/ has to be determined from context. In the
context provided above, /post-/ most definitely "subsequent to the
discovery/introduction of. There is nothing wrong with that usage,
IMHO. No one reading it now would misunderstand that it might mean
that AIDS has been conquered or that feminism has disappeared; both
are still very much with us.
The W3NID definitions I provided in another post support that
interpretation despite the lack of examples. I can no longer access
my OED2 CD-ROM, but there should be examples in the OED that will
also support it. While we expect a war to be over shortly, we have
no reason to expect that a disease or a philosophy will ever die. We
cannot say, for example "post-bubonic plague era" simply because the
bubonic plague has not disappeared entirely, only the epidemic that
occurred about 700-800 years ago. The same with AIDS.
To quote that "anything-goes descriptivist" \\P. Schultz, "That's
the way the language is used." [Are you reading this, Raymond?] In
this case, I agree with \\P.
Mike Lyle
I might write and how I'd interpret it if I saw it. I'm still sure,
though!
Mike.
Areff
> On 14 Aug 2003 11:36:27 -0700, annas...@yahoo.com (Anna Skipka) wrote:
>
> >From the Grauniad:
> >
> >"[The magazine] lost its way long ago, analysts said, unable to
> >navigate the mores of a post-Aids, post-feminist age."
> >
> >http://media.guardian.co.uk/presspublishing/story/0,7495,1018378,00.html
> >
> >My impression is that "post-" is used here to mean "after the
> >introduction of" rather than "after the end of." (AIDS is certainly
> >still around.) Am I alone in thinking this usage is (not to put too
> >fine a point on it) wrong?
>
> I certainly find it strange. Woukld 1940 be "post-war"?
Not the way I use "postwar", and believe you me, I use the word
"postwar" more often than most human beings. "Postwar" means "on or
after V-E Day, 1945", plain and simple.
Anna Skipka
> haye...@yahoo.com (Steve Hayes) burbled
> news:3f3d9326...@news.saix.net:
>
> > On 14 Aug 2003 11:36:27 -0700, annas...@yahoo.com (Anna Skipka)
> > wrote:
> >
> >>From the Grauniad:
> >>
> >>"[The magazine] lost its way long ago, analysts said, unable to
> >>navigate the mores of a post-Aids, post-feminist age."
> >>
> >>http://media.guardian.co.uk/presspublishing/story/0,7495,1018378,00
> >>.html
> >>
> >>My impression is that "post-" is used here to mean "after the
> >>introduction of" rather than "after the end of." (AIDS is
> >>certainly still around.) Am I alone in thinking this usage is (not
> >>to put too fine a point on it) wrong?
> >
> > I certainly find it strange. Woukld 1940 be "post-war"?
>
> No. That war was in its first stages of fighting in 1940, and it
> wouldn't even have been pre-war in the USA, which didn't get into
> it until December 7, 1941.
>
> The meaning of /post-/ has to be determined from context. In the
If the original example I quoted had left out "post-AIDS," I would
have concluded that the writer felt that feminism was dead.
> context provided above, /post-/ most definitely "subsequent to the
> discovery/introduction of. There is nothing wrong with that usage,
> IMHO. No one reading it now would misunderstand that it might mean
> that AIDS has been conquered or that feminism has disappeared; both
> are still very much with us.
>
> The W3NID definitions I provided in another post support that
> interpretation despite the lack of examples. I can no longer access
> my OED2 CD-ROM, but there should be examples in the OED that will
> also support it. While we expect a war to be over shortly, we have
> no reason to expect that a disease or a philosophy will ever die. We
> cannot say, for example "post-bubonic plague era" simply because the
> bubonic plague has not disappeared entirely, only the epidemic that
> occurred about 700-800 years ago. The same with AIDS.
What about post-smallpox? The fact that one can't honestly say we're
in a post-plague era does not suggest that the meaning of post- (or
plague, for that matter) ought to be changed so that we can say we
are. And while you may believe that old philosophies never die, many
people disagree with you. These are the folks who bring us forms such
as post-modern and post-structuralist. They intend to imply that
modernism and structuralism are dead.
> To quote that "anything-goes descriptivist" \\P. Schultz, "That's
> the way the language is used." [Are you reading this, Raymond?] In
> this case, I agree with \\P.
So you're saying that it's fine with you that:
feminist era = post-feminist era
colonial = post-colonial
etc.?
Seems like an abuse of perfectly good words to me.
-skipka
Mike Lyle
You're lucky: some had to wait till VJ.
Mike.
mickwick
>If the original example I quoted had left out "post-AIDS," I would
>have concluded that the writer felt that feminism was dead.
Many people think that it is dead (in the West, anyway). That's why I
found the sentence so confusing: it seemed to use 'post-' in both the
post-advent and post-demise senses. It was all the more confusing
because feminism's perceived demise was big news here very recently,
even in The Guardian. See:
http://www.eoc.org.uk/EOCeng/EOCcs/Research/talking%20equality%20report.
pdf
(Warning: 2.4Mb.)
The Equal Opportunities Commission is Britain's leading anti-sexism
quango. That report, published in July, found that
The concept of 'feminism' was seen virtually unanimously in
negative terms as old fashioned and 'ball-breaking'. It is seen
as politics from the past suggesting that the idea of women's
inequality is seen as out of date.
The AOC was very shocked by these findings and, according to The
Guardian, 'it considered withdrawing parts of the report but then
decided to publish.' (That presumably means 'publish in full'. Perhaps
the original sentence read 'publish and be damned' but it got chopped
for being too trite - even for The Guardian, that stale, time-warped
fishwrapper for the Establishment's pan-seared tuna steaks marinated in
Umbrian olive oil with basil and coriander.)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,989268,00.html
Some comments from women in the study's focus groups:
'Every time I think of feminism I just get this really awful feeling.'
'I associate feminists with that kind of ... ball-breaking, you know - I
don't need you, I will do this on my own.'
ObAUE: The interviewee who gets the really awful feeling is labelled by
the report as 'Southern young woman'. There's nothing wrong with that,
but it's not right either. I would have labelled her 'Young southern
woman', or perhaps 'Young Southern woman'.
Another interviewee is labelled 'Lesbian woman'. Nuff said.
--
Mickwick
CyberCypher
news:0PSzDfBn9qP$Ew...@shropshire.plus.com:
[...]
> Another interviewee is labelled 'Lesbian woman'. Nuff said.
If "gay" can mean "homosexual male" or "homosexual female", isn't it
sexist to assume that "lesbian" must be applied only to homosexual
women? After all, in this day and age, we are what we think we are
and what we call ourselves, not only what we eat or are called by
others. For lesbianism to be truly an equal-opportunity -ism, it
must not discriminate against straight or gay or bi- men or women.
Why can't we all be "lesbian" if we wish? That's the true American
way.
--
Franke: "Equality for egalitarians".
CyberCypher
> CyberCypher <hui...@netscape.com> wrote in message
> news:<Xns93D989B39...@130.133.1.4>...
>> haye...@yahoo.com (Steve Hayes) burbled
>> news:3f3d9326...@news.saix.net:
>>
>> > On 14 Aug 2003 11:36:27 -0700, annas...@yahoo.com (Anna
>> > Skipka) wrote:
>> >
>> >>From the Grauniad:
>> >>
>> >>"[The magazine] lost its way long ago, analysts said, unable to
>> >>navigate the mores of a post-Aids, post-feminist age."
>> >>
>> >>http://media.guardian.co.uk/presspublishing/story/0,7495,1018378
>> >>,00 .html
>> >>
>> >>My impression is that "post-" is used here to mean "after the
>> >>introduction of" rather than "after the end of." (AIDS is
>> >>certainly still around.) Am I alone in thinking this usage is
>> >>(not to put too fine a point on it) wrong?
>> >
>> > I certainly find it strange. Woukld 1940 be "post-war"?
>>
>> No. That war was in its first stages of fighting in 1940, and it
>> wouldn't even have been pre-war in the USA, which didn't get
>> into it until December 7, 1941.
>>
>> The meaning of /post-/ has to be determined from context. In the
> If the original example I quoted had left out "post-AIDS," I would
> have concluded that the writer felt that feminism was dead.
As others have pointed out, it may be synonymous with "the ghost who
walks". It's too soon to make a definite judgment.
>> context provided above, /post-/ most definitely "subsequent to
>> the discovery/introduction of. There is nothing wrong with that
>> usage, IMHO. No one reading it now would misunderstand that it
>> might mean that AIDS has been conquered or that feminism has
>> disappeared; both are still very much with us.
>>
>> The W3NID definitions I provided in another post support that
>> interpretation despite the lack of examples. I can no longer
>> access my OED2 CD-ROM, but there should be examples in the OED
>> that will also support it. While we expect a war to be over
>> shortly, we have no reason to expect that a disease or a
>> philosophy will ever die. We cannot say, for example
>> "post-bubonic plague era" simply because the bubonic plague has
>> not disappeared entirely, only the epidemic that occurred about
>> 700-800 years ago. The same with AIDS.
>
> What about post-smallpox? The fact that one can't honestly say
> we're in a post-plague era does not suggest that the meaning of
> post- (or plague, for that matter) ought to be changed so that we
> can say we are. And while you may believe that old philosophies
> never die, many people disagree with you. These are the folks who
> bring us forms such as post-modern and post-structuralist. They
> intend to imply that modernism and structuralism are dead.
As Simon pointed out in another thread, the New Critical Era in
literary criticism is dead. We are in the post-modernist age or, in
his case, post-structuralist age (I am not familiar enough with the
recent chronology of litcrit, so I won't comment on that). Every
university in Taiwan that teaches English Literature does so not
from a New Critical view but from a
deconstructionist/post-modernist/post-structuralist view. What they
have to say about literature means that I do not recognize that
which they "criticize" as "literature" (whatever that means now).
The point is that some of use have moved on and for those of us who
have, the past is dead. For those of us who haven't, however, it is
still very much alive and should not be given the short-shirt it
always seems to get these days.
>> To quote that "anything-goes descriptivist" \\P. Schultz, "That's
>> the way the language is used." [Are you reading this, Raymond?]
>> In this case, I agree with \\P.
>
> So you're saying that it's fine with you that:
> feminist era = post-feminist era
> colonial = post-colonial
> etc.?
I think there's a problem with your equations. It's a matter of
level of generalization:
post-feminist era =/> feminist era
post-colonial =/> colonial
While I think your notion of what "post-X" has to mean is too
restrictive, I agree with your concluding remark below.
> Seems like an abuse of perfectly good words to me.
But this is what contemporary English usage is all about. The trick
is to keep finding new ways to abuse the language so that one can
argue with assurance that "this is the way the language is used, so
get used to it". Anyone who insists that words should mean anything
will have to go to the end of the line after being re-educated in
the politics of "inclusiveness of usages". We native speakers, after
all, have a perfect knowledge of the grammar of our own language, so
nothing a native speaker says can be imperfect or incorrect
linguistically (and that includes usage-wise as well).
Mike Lyle
I'm certainly far too scruffy to be gay, and I often find it difficult
to identify with male heterosexual attitudes. So I have sometimes
considered the possibility that I might be a Lesbian man. Works for
me.
Mike.
Don Aitken
Many of us can. See "The Lesbian ancestors of Prince Rainier of
Monaco, Dr. Otto von Habsburg, Brooke Shields and the Marquis de
Sade", by William Addams Reitwiesner, at
http://members.aol.com/eurostamm/lesbian.html
--
Don Aitken
CyberCypher
news:d7rujvof7aqltagvp...@4ax.com:
Great! I'm happy to see that this word still retains its former
meaning.
mickwick
>If "gay" can mean "homosexual male" or "homosexual female", isn't it
>sexist to assume that "lesbian" must be applied only to homosexual
>women? After all, in this day and age, we are what we think we are
>and what we call ourselves, not only what we eat or are called by
>others. For lesbianism to be truly an equal-opportunity -ism, it
>must not discriminate against straight or gay or bi- men or women.
>Why can't we all be "lesbian" if we wish? That's the true American
>way.
Which reminds me of a recent Mark Steyn column in the Chicago Sun-Times
about New York's first all-gay high school. Steyn believes that, rather
than bussing persecuted gays and maybe-gays and just plain weedies to a
special school, it would be more effective to bus all school bullies to
a special school. (Flashman High?)
There they could bully each other to their heart's content - or,
as the educators would say, celebrate their identity in a
mutually threatening learning environment.
--
Mickwick
mickwick
>I'm certainly far too scruffy to be gay, and I often find it difficult
>to identify with male heterosexual attitudes. So I have sometimes
>considered the possibility that I might be a Lesbian man. Works for
>me.
If I don't mow my hair every couple of months I turn into a lesbian.
--
Mickwick
CyberCypher
news:OXB2enARy5P$Ew...@shropshire.plus.com:
If only bureacrats and politicians could think this way.
Anna Skipka
The question is not whether or not feminism is dead, but whether the
writer intended to imply that feminism is dead. I believe the writer
did not want to make that implication, but simply used the language
incorrectly.
How does this relate to the use of "post-"? Or is it a segue?
> >> To quote that "anything-goes descriptivist" \\P. Schultz, "That's
> >> the way the language is used." [Are you reading this, Raymond?]
> >> In this case, I agree with \\P.
> >
> > So you're saying that it's fine with you that:
> > feminist era = post-feminist era
> > colonial = post-colonial
> > etc.?
>
> I think there's a problem with your equations. It's a matter of
> level of generalization:
>
> post-feminist era =/> feminist era
> post-colonial =/> colonial
What is =/> ? Equal to or faintingly greater than?
> While I think your notion of what "post-X" has to mean is too
> restrictive, I agree with your concluding remark below.
>
> > Seems like an abuse of perfectly good words to me.
>
> But this is what contemporary English usage is all about. The trick
> is to keep finding new ways to abuse the language so that one can
> argue with assurance that "this is the way the language is used, so
> get used to it". Anyone who insists that words should mean anything
> will have to go to the end of the line after being re-educated in
> the politics of "inclusiveness of usages". We native speakers, after
> all, have a perfect knowledge of the grammar of our own language, so
> nothing a native speaker says can be imperfect or incorrect
> linguistically (and that includes usage-wise as well).
I'm pleased to know that you will not be able to muster the moral
authority to correct my errors.
-skipka
CyberCypher
> CyberCypher <hui...@netscape.com> wrote in message
> news:<Xns93DA70BC8...@130.133.1.4>...
>> annas...@yahoo.com (Anna Skipka) burbled
>> news:712e5608.03081...@posting.google.com:
>>
>> > CyberCypher <hui...@netscape.com> wrote in message
>> > news:<Xns93D989B39...@130.133.1.4>...
>> >> haye...@yahoo.com (Steve Hayes) burbled
>> >> news:3f3d9326...@news.saix.net:
>> >>
>> >> > On 14 Aug 2003 11:36:27 -0700, annas...@yahoo.com (Anna
>> >> > Skipka) wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>From the Grauniad:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>"[The magazine] lost its way long ago, analysts said, unable
>> >> >>to navigate the mores of a post-Aids, post-feminist age."
>> >> >>
>> >> >>http://media.guardian.co.uk/presspublishing/story/0,7495,1018
>> >> >>378 ,00 .html
>> >> >>
>> >> >>My impression is that "post-" is used here to mean "after
>> >> >>the introduction of" rather than "after the end of." (AIDS
>> >> >>is certainly still around.) Am I alone in thinking this
>> >> >>usage is (not to put too fine a point on it) wrong?
>> >> >
>> >> > I certainly find it strange. Woukld 1940 be "post-war"?
>> >>
>> >> No. That war was in its first stages of fighting in 1940, and
>> >> it wouldn't even have been pre-war in the USA, which didn't
>> >> get into it until December 7, 1941.
>> >>
>> >> The meaning of /post-/ has to be determined from context. In
>> >> the
>>
>> > If the original example I quoted had left out "post-AIDS," I
>> > would have concluded that the writer felt that feminism was
>> > dead.
>>
>> As others have pointed out, it may be synonymous with "the ghost
>> who walks". It's too soon to make a definite judgment.
>
> The question is not whether or not feminism is dead, but whether
> the writer intended to imply that feminism is dead. I believe the
> writer did not want to make that implication, but simply used the
> language incorrectly.
Here I have to disagree with you. I understood the writer to mean
"post-advent" and not "post-mortem". I also understood the writer to
mean the strain of feminism that showed itself in the 60s and 70s,
and not the feminism of the suffragettes or of the 19th century or
earlier in the USA and, possibly, Europe. If that is what the writer
meant --- and my interpretation is based on the context of the
phrase as well as an understanding that it has two meanings (which
you seem to disagree with solely on the basis of a lack of example
sentences in the W3NID) and not only the one you assign to it. I am
somewhat of a linguistic pedant, as should be obvious from most of
my recent posts, but I do not, like Joanathn Swift, have any desire
to "fix the English language for ever". I am even quite often very
willing to agree that if something is understandable as intended,
that it is then correct, despite the railings of pedantic extremists
who insist on stupidities like no split infinitives and no
prepositions at the end of the sentence.
Did you miss that the names of the literary ctirical movements that
Simon said were moribund were both preceded by "post"?
"segue" is primarily a musical term and, based on my experience with
the word, used to mean (from AHD4) "2. To move smoothly and
unhesitatingly from one state, condition, situation, or element to
another: "Daylight segued into dusk" (Susan Dworski); (from W3NID)
"*time to segue* ... into the second part of this essay S.J.Gould*", a
pretentious word when not used musically. I understand it, of course,
but I cannot condone Dworski's usage here any more than I can Gould's,
though his is a less grating usage. I wouldn't say that that the usages
given as eamples by these two dictionaries are "incorrect", though,
just offensive to my ear and should be eliminated from the language if
possible.
>> >> To quote that "anything-goes descriptivist" \\P. Schultz,
>> >> "That's the way the language is used." [Are you reading this,
>> >> Raymond?] In this case, I agree with \\P.
>> >
>> > So you're saying that it's fine with you that:
>> > feminist era = post-feminist era
>> > colonial = post-colonial
>> > etc.?
>>
>> I think there's a problem with your equations. It's a matter of
>> level of generalization:
>>
>> post-feminist era =/> feminist era
>> post-colonial =/> colonial
>
> What is =/> ? Equal to or faintingly greater than?
"equal to or greater than" when it is impossible to produce the single
symbol that means the same. In this case, the "greater than" means that
the term on the right intersects with with term on the left and is, on
occasion, part of the same subset.
>
>> While I think your notion of what "post-X" has to mean is too
>> restrictive, I agree with your concluding remark below.
>>
>> > Seems like an abuse of perfectly good words to me.
>>
>> But this is what contemporary English usage is all about. The
>> trick is to keep finding new ways to abuse the language so that
>> one can argue with assurance that "this is the way the language
>> is used, so get used to it". Anyone who insists that words should
>> mean anything will have to go to the end of the line after being
>> re-educated in the politics of "inclusiveness of usages". We
>> native speakers, after all, have a perfect knowledge of the
>> grammar of our own language, so nothing a native speaker says can
>> be imperfect or incorrect linguistically (and that includes
>> usage-wise as well).
>
> I'm pleased to know that you will not be able to muster the moral
> authority to correct my errors.
Well, no more than you have already mustered in correcting the "error"
of the writer uwho used "post-feminist" to mean "after the advent of
contemporary feminism", anyway. :-)
R J Valentine
...
} Many of us can. See "The Lesbian ancestors of Prince Rainier of
} Monaco, Dr. Otto von Habsburg, Brooke Shields and the Marquis de
} Sade", by William Addams Reitwiesner, at
} http://members.aol.com/eurostamm/lesbian.html
Whose author is a reasonably close (which is to say, with ancestors in the
Greater-Laurel/Greater-New-York area) cousin of all my niblings, as it
happens (NTTASAT).
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:r...@smart.net>
Owns a copy of the published version.
Steve Hayes
>annas...@yahoo.com (Anna Skipka) burbled
>news:712e5608.03081...@posting.google.com:
>> If the original example I quoted had left out "post-AIDS," I would
>> have concluded that the writer felt that feminism was dead.
>
>As others have pointed out, it may be synonymous with "the ghost who
>walks". It's too soon to make a definite judgment.
Perhaps we need to distinguish between historical events and movements or
schools of thought.
"Post-war" usually means "after the war ended".
I've sometimes used "post-Enlightenment" in articles, and have found that
people have sometimes misunderstoood it.
I used it to mean not "after the Enlightenment" began, but rather "after some
people's thinking had moved away from Enlightenment thinking".
So people similarly speak of "postmodern". Post-feminist often means "Feminism
at one time dominated my thinking, but no longer does so."
The problem with the example is that it includes an event (the Aids epidemic)
and an intellectual movement in the same sentence, and so creates ambiguity.
CyberCypher
news:3f403e12....@news.saix.net:
> On 17 Aug 2003 02:57:38 GMT, CyberCypher <hui...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
>>annas...@yahoo.com (Anna Skipka) burbled
>>news:712e5608.03081...@posting.google.com:
>>> If the original example I quoted had left out "post-AIDS," I
>>> would have concluded that the writer felt that feminism was
>>> dead.
>>
>>As others have pointed out, it may be synonymous with "the ghost
>>who walks". It's too soon to make a definite judgment.
>
> Perhaps we need to distinguish between historical events and
> movements or schools of thought.
>
> "Post-war" usually means "after the war ended".
>
> I've sometimes used "post-Enlightenment" in articles, and have
> found that people have sometimes misunderstoood it.
>
> I used it to mean not "after the Enlightenment" began, but rather
> "after some people's thinking had moved away from Enlightenment
> thinking".
>
> So people similarly speak of "postmodern". Post-feminist often
> means "Feminism at one time dominated my thinking, but no longer
> does so."
>
> The problem with the example is that it includes an event (the
> Aids epidemic) and an intellectual movement in the same sentence,
> and so creates ambiguity.
I agree with you analysis, but it seems to me that we the readers
have to do our best to attempt to understand what the writer might
reasonably have meant given not only the sentence but also the
context in which it appeared (the larger piece of discourse), and
the facts we know about the things he said. AIDS is not gone, so it
must mean "post-advent of AIDS"; the same with feminism.
While it certainly is ambiguous in the strictest sense of the word,
I don't think it's all that ambiguous in context. The writer was not
making the points that AIDS or feminism were dead and gone, just
that the magazine died because it could not change its style in
order to survive in a world caught in the moral grasp of the AIDS
epidemic and feminism, both of which required that the media
change what they said about things and the way they talked about
them. I agree that it would have been better for the writer to have
been more specific about what he meant, but in this case, it seems
clear enough that he did not mean that either AIDS or feminimism is
dead. I didn't have to stop and think about what he meant, and I am
a bit of a pedant about such things.
Anna Skipka
<snip>
> my interpretation is based on the context of the
> phrase as well as an understanding that it has two meanings (which
> you seem to disagree with solely on the basis of a lack of example
> sentences in the W3NID) and not only the one you assign to it.
No. I base my opinion that the usage is incorrect on:
1) Logic. Why should X equal post-X ? Which, despite your
protestations, is what results if "post-" is redefined to mean
"following the advent of."
2) Definition. "Subsequent" means "following," not "concurrent."
3) Authoritative examples, or lack thereof.
4) Analysis. Does the usage seem to enhance or hinder understanding?
> I am
> somewhat of a linguistic pedant, as should be obvious from most of
> my recent posts, but I do not, like Joanathn Swift, have any desire
> to "fix the English language for ever". I am even quite often very
> willing to agree that if something is understandable as intended,
> that it is then correct, despite the railings of pedantic extremists
> who insist on stupidities like no split infinitives and no
> prepositions at the end of the sentence.
Very interesting! But then you completely ruined the effect by saying:
> "segue" is primarily a musical term and, based on my experience with
> the word, used to mean (from AHD4) "2. To move smoothly and
> unhesitatingly from one state, condition, situation, or element to
> another: "Daylight segued into dusk" (Susan Dworski); (from W3NID)
> "*time to segue* ... into the second part of this essay S.J.Gould*", a
> pretentious word when not used musically. I understand it, of course,
> but I cannot condone Dworski's usage here any more than I can Gould's,
> though his is a less grating usage. I wouldn't say that that the usages
> given as eamples by these two dictionaries are "incorrect", though,
> just offensive to my ear and should be eliminated from the language if
> possible.
You dislike the perfectly understandable "segue" because you associate
it with music, but you like the usage of "post-" meaning "concurrent"
because you're an anything-goes kind of a guy? Do you see any
contradiction here? Were you tortured as a child by a fanatic violin
teacher?
> >> native speakers, after all, have a perfect knowledge of the
> >> grammar of our own language, so nothing a native speaker says can
> >> be imperfect or incorrect linguistically (and that includes
> >> usage-wise as well).
> >
> > I'm pleased to know that you will not be able to muster the moral
> > authority to correct my errors.
>
> Well, no more than you have already mustered in correcting the "error"
> of the writer uwho used "post-feminist" to mean "after the advent of
> contemporary feminism", anyway. :-)
No. *I* don't have any difficulty mustering outrage at errors, because
I believe they can be made, even by native speakers, and I believe
there is value in correcting them. You, on the other hand, apparently
like to affect that you do not believe this. Now, I don't actually
believe that you believe what you say you believe, but I'm perfectly
happy to tease you about it.
-skipka
CyberCypher
news:712e5608.0308...@posting.google.com:
> CyberCypher <hui...@netscape.com> wrote in message
> news:<Xns93DB5B74...@130.133.1.4>...
>
> <snip>
>> my interpretation is based on the context of the
>> phrase as well as an understanding that it has two meanings
>> (which you seem to disagree with solely on the basis of a lack of
>> example sentences in the W3NID) and not only the one you assign
>> to it.
>
> No. I base my opinion that the usage is incorrect on:
> 1) Logic. Why should X equal post-X ? Which, despite your
> protestations, is what results if "post-" is redefined to mean
> "following the advent of."
The FAQ for AUE must contain some statement about the undesirability
of arguing usage on the basis of logic. Language is not logical and
usages are not logical; therefore it is illogical to argue that one
usage is better than another just because it seems or even *is*
logical where the other is not.
> 2) Definition. "Subsequent" means "following," not
> "concurrent."
Subsequent to opening his thneed factory, the onceler hired his
relatives to work in it.
So the event is the opening, but the working was concurrent with the
factory's being open.
Subsequent to his assuming leadership of the Chinese Communist
Party, Chairman Mao forced China's economy into a slump from which
it has only recently begun to recover.
He became party leader only once, but he kept forcing China's
economy into the financial toilet for the entire 26 years of his
reign.
Sometimes that which follows one event is concurrent with the
duration of the effects of that event.
3) Authoritative examples, or lack thereof.
Authoritative examples do not exist for every usage. Perhaps there
are some in the OED. If there were some, the one you object to would
be one. They get their examples from old books and the new mass
media.
> 4) Analysis. Does the usage seem to enhance or hinder
> understanding?
I had no problem understanding the sentence as I am sure it was
intended: after the advent of AIDS and Feminism, not after their
passing. We all know that they haven't passed. Unless we think that
that which is no longer uppermost in our minds is dead. For some,
absence makes the heart grow fonder, but for others, absence means
they forget you exist, even if you're gone only for the weekend. I
suppose the guy could've meant that now terrorism is the crisis and
patriotism (at least in the US) the -ism of the moment for now, and
that AIDS and Feminism have been supplanted. But that doesn't make
sense in the context of his sentence. It seems more likely that the
magazine died because it couldn't deal with the political demands of
AIDS and Feminism.
>> I am
>> somewhat of a linguistic pedant, as should be obvious from most
>> of my recent posts, but I do not, like Joanathn Swift, have any
>> desire to "fix the English language for ever". I am even quite
>> often very willing to agree that if something is understandable
>> as intended, that it is then correct, despite the railings of
>> pedantic extremists who insist on stupidities like no split
>> infinitives and no prepositions at the end of the sentence.
>
> Very interesting! But then you completely ruined the effect by
> saying:
>
>> "segue" is primarily a musical term and, based on my experience
>> with the word, used to mean (from AHD4) "2. To move smoothly and
>> unhesitatingly from one state, condition, situation, or element
>> to another: "Daylight segued into dusk" (Susan Dworski); (from
>> W3NID) "*time to segue* ... into the second part of this essay
>> S.J.Gould*", a pretentious word when not used musically. I
>> understand it, of course, but I cannot condone Dworski's usage
>> here any more than I can Gould's, though his is a less grating
>> usage. I wouldn't say that that the usages given as eamples by
>> these two dictionaries are "incorrect", though, just offensive to
>> my ear and should be eliminated from the language if possible.
>
> You dislike the perfectly understandable "segue" because you
> associate it with music,
No, because I associate it with pretensi on, not with music
> but you like the usage of "post-" meaning
> "concurrent" because you're an anything-goes kind of a guy?
I don't see any contradiction in post-the-advent-of-X and
"concurrent with X". Everything depends on context. I don't like
absolutist judgments, not even my own, because too often there are
unseen circumstances and unanticipated mitigating factors that make
such judgments fail in particular cases.
> Do you
> see any contradiction here? Were you tortured as a child by a
> fanatic violin teacher?
>
>
>> >> native speakers, after all, have a perfect knowledge of the
>> >> grammar of our own language, so nothing a native speaker says
>> >> can be imperfect or incorrect linguistically (and that
>> >> includes usage-wise as well).
>> >
>> > I'm pleased to know that you will not be able to muster the
>> > moral authority to correct my errors.
I was being ironic here. I don't believe this for a minute. The only
perfect knowledge any native speaker has is of his own ideolect and
nothing more.
>> Well, no more than you have already mustered in correcting the
>> "error" of the writer uwho used "post-feminist" to mean "after
>> the advent of contemporary feminism", anyway. :-)
>
> No. *I* don't have any difficulty mustering outrage at errors,
> because I believe they can be made, even by native speakers,
Well, yes, I believe that all users of language make errors. That
should be obvious.
> and I believe there is value in correcting them.
I tried to correct my my first wife's "he gave to John and I" error
and failed. Now she's dead an it doesn't matter any more. I've been
trying to correct my 5th wife's English p[ronunciation and usage
errors for the past 7 years and have failed miserably. When people
don't want to change their ways, there is no value in correcting
their errors, only self-satisfaction at knowing that one is right
and someone else is wrong.
> You, on the other hand, apparently like to affect that you do
> not believe this. Now, I don't actually believe that you
> believe what you say you believe, but I'm perfectly happy to
> tease you about it.
I dont mind. I often question my beliefs and even change them when
required.