Re: Son-in-law
- From: mjcar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 6 Apr 2006 01:56:37 -0700
Doug McDonald wrote:
mjcar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
JeffChipman wrote:
Again, in this instance I have nothing to work with, and until I do, I
can't give any credence to Renia and Nat's et. al. arguments. How
could I?
Here's another reference for you to ignore:
In her will dated 25 January 1657/8, Mercy Docwra of Cambridge,
Is that Cambridge, Virginia? If not, then you are not
addressing Chipman's question ... which was Virginia.
Doug, do you seriously think that English settlers upon moving to
Virginia suddenly began speaking a new version of English?
Before he began demanding that all examples be taken from late 17th
century Tidewater Virginia [a probably impossible bar], Jeff posted the
following:
"I regard Diana Dale's use of the term "son-in-law" as ironclad proof
that Mary Dale was her daughter" (3 April 2006)
and
"What I get in return is statements that "son-in-law" can mean
"numerous" things, without a citation to anything. Nobody yet has
supplied even a hint of a reason why "son-in-law" means "husband of a
step-daughter" in this case. I object to the notion that because you
say the term can mean various things, without any reference to the
likeliest usage, that I am somehow responsible to you to show what it
means in this case." (4 April 2006)
I have cited four English cases about the use of "son-in-law" and
"daughter-in-law" to mean stepson or stepdaughter, and the use of
"father-in-law" to mean stepfather-in-law. These range from 1530 to
1698, and come from Kent, Cambridge and Berkshire - a reasonable
chronological and geographical spread. As Jeff himself has noted, it
is one thing to say that a word can have various meanings, and that
instances of the same are ubiquitous; it is another to put one's finger
on some, which is what I have essayed to do. Interestingly, Jeff
himself has not produced any evidence whatsoever - he is too busy
spitting vituperation I suppose.
These four examples are, I admit, not the most persuasive evidence that
could be desired (Clark has certainly produced some interesting
material) but to ignore them or say that they are of no value seems
rather foolish.
Now, of course, Jeff is saying that "the most likely" meaning is the
essential thing, somehow to be equated with his concept of "iron-clad
proof" [I hope he is never a juror on a criminal trial, given that he
cannot fathom the distinction between likelihood and proof], as if
statistics will magically resolve the doubts that anyone without an
irrational determination to preserve an cherished pedigree can see
surround this case.
M Andrews-Reading
.
- References:
- Son-in-law
- From: Joemaryjoa
- Re: Son-in-law
- From: JeffChipman
- Re: Son-in-law
- From: mjcar
- Re: Son-in-law
- From: Doug McDonald
- Son-in-law
- Prev by Date: Re: Albion's Seed; or what does "son-in-law" mean
- Next by Date: Re: Albion's Seed; or what does "son-in-law" mean
- Previous by thread: Re: Son-in-law
- Next by thread: Re: Son-in-law
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|