pixiecrinkle (
pixiecrinkle) wrote2006-01-09 10:04 am
Entry tags:
Does this bug you?
I keep coming across news stories that use the word "ancient" in a way that I didn't think was correct.
For instance, in this story about trying to identify a skull that may or may not be Mozart's, the following phrase appears:
forensics experts admitted Sunday on national television that they still can't say with certainty whether an ancient skull belonged to the composer, as some believe.
My first gut reaction was "Well, if it's 'ancient' it couldn't be Mozart's because it wasn't quite that long ago that he was around."
So I looked up the definition of "ancient" and it seems that it is acceptable to use it to mean "something really old" whereas I thought it was meant to be used to indicate something specifically at or before what we refer to as Ancient Greece or Rome.
Opinions?? Do I need to let go of this particular grammatical pet peeve?
For instance, in this story about trying to identify a skull that may or may not be Mozart's, the following phrase appears:
forensics experts admitted Sunday on national television that they still can't say with certainty whether an ancient skull belonged to the composer, as some believe.
My first gut reaction was "Well, if it's 'ancient' it couldn't be Mozart's because it wasn't quite that long ago that he was around."
So I looked up the definition of "ancient" and it seems that it is acceptable to use it to mean "something really old" whereas I thought it was meant to be used to indicate something specifically at or before what we refer to as Ancient Greece or Rome.
Opinions?? Do I need to let go of this particular grammatical pet peeve?

no subject
(No, but seriously: I understand it as being "really old," but with most usage being, say, pre-Christian Era. We have ancient Anasazi sites that aren't 2000 years old, but there's a fuzzy line that I think is more about context to define "ancient." A skull from Mozart's time? Eh, that doesn't quite work for me. Ancient would be 2000+ years old in that context.)
no subject
I think it has more flexible meaning than you suggest. But I could be wrong.
no subject
I guess it's just one of those words that I feel has a "casual" meaning and a "formal" meaning. Casual, meaning I can use it in an exaggeration to say that I'm ancient, but that it should be used more formally in journalism and the like. I'm probably wrong though. I've been known to be overly critical of word choice before. ;-)
no subject
no subject
I guess my definition of ancient would be anything of or relating to history prior to 1300 or 1000 A.D. It's sort of an arbitrary time period, I suppose, but when I think about things that happened in say, the 1400's, I don't feel like those things are really ancient. The Renaissance doesn't feel ancient to me, so for something to be ancient to me it has to have happened sometime prior to that.
no subject
no subject
no subject
Based on the definition here:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+ancient&btnG=Google+Search
and here:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ancient
I think it's a poor use of the word. IMHO, a better wording would be:
forensics experts admitted Sunday on national television that they still can't say with certainty whether an 18th century skull belonged to the composer, as some believe.
no subject
Ancient and Pet Peeves