Re: State Of The Illiteracy

jerry_friedman@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Martin Ambuhl wrote:
[...]
>> "I could not do otherwise without transcending the limits prescribed
>> by the Constitution for the President; and without feeling that I
>> might in some degree disturb the security which religion nowadays
>> enjoys in this country in its complete separation from the political
>> concerns of the General Government."
>
> This use of "transcend" agrees (up to some redundancy) with dictionary
> definitions taken literally (1. 1. To pass beyond the limits of:
> /emotions that transcend understanding/ --AHD), but I've never heard
> it used this way. I'd have said "transgress". Does anyone know
> whether "transcend" was commonly used in this negative way back then?

I think it's always been used like that by lawyers...yes, but not only
lawyers: OED has 14C as its earliest in the sense of "go beyond",
"exceed", etc. I don't really understand the 1340 quotation, but one
from 1534 is clearly one we're looking for.

I see, while I'm at it, that this non-physical use is quoted from 200
years before the physical one. (Not that that proves anything, of
course: "absence of evidence", etc.)

--
Mike.


.