Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching
Learnglish.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Discussion Groups / English Usage / October 2007



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

British Newspaper Obituaries and announcements

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
James Silverton - 19 Oct 2007 21:27 GMT
I recently read an obituary in a British magazine of a man who
was one my professors. It began "Durward Cruickshank, formerly
Emeritus Professor...." The word "formerly" while precise seems
rather insensitive to me but I notice its use more and more as I
age.  Interestingly, similar American notices and obituaries do
not use "formerly" regarding a position held by someone at their
decease, as far as I can tell.

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
Peter Duncanson - 19 Oct 2007 23:27 GMT
>I recently read an obituary in a British magazine of a man who
>was one my professors. It began "Durward Cruickshank, formerly
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>not use "formerly" regarding a position held by someone at their
>decease, as far as I can tell.

I've never noticed the use of "formerly Emeritus Professor" in
British obituaries. It was Cruickshank's status at the time of
his death. "Formerly" suggests that he had lost the status
before he died.

Looking at other obituaries in British newspapers there does not
seem to be any instance of "formerly ...".

The Times has no mention of his prof-ship emeritus:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/obituaries/article2224510.ece

The Independent:
http://news.independent.co.uk/people/obituaries/article2811621.ece

   Durward Cruickshank, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry of the
   University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology
  (Umist)

The Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/news/2007/10/
05/db0503.xml


   Cruickshank remained at UMIST for the rest of his academic
   career — as Professor of Theoretical Chemistry (1967-84),
   deputy principal (1971-72) and – from his retirement in 1983
   – as emeritus professor.

> James Silverton
>Potomac, Maryland
>
>E-mail, with obvious alterations:
>not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

James Silverton - 20 Oct 2007 00:44 GMT
Peter  wrote  on Fri, 19 Oct 2007 23:27:49 +0100:

??>> I recently read an obituary in a British magazine of a man
??>> who was one my professors. It began "Durward Cruickshank,
??>> formerly Emeritus Professor...." The word "formerly" while
??>> precise seems rather insensitive to me but I notice its
??>> use more and more as I age.  Interestingly, similar
??>> American notices and obituaries do not use "formerly"
??>> regarding a position held by someone at their decease, as
??>> far as I can tell.
??>>
PD> I've never noticed the use of "formerly Emeritus Professor"
PD> in British obituaries. It was Cruickshank's status at the
PD> time of his death. "Formerly" suggests that he had lost the
PD> status before he died.

PD> Looking at other obituaries in British newspapers there
PD> does not seem to be any instance of "formerly ...".

PD> The Times has no mention of his prof-ship emeritus:
PD>
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/obituaries/article2224510.ece

PD> The Independent:
PD>
http://news.independent.co.uk/people/obituaries/article2811621.ece

)

PD> The Telegraph:
PD>
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/news/2007/10/
05/db0503.xml


 Interesting! I was actually quoting from memory from the RSC
News of October 2007, which is where as a chemist also, I
usually notice these things. The actual citation read, in the
Deaths section:

"Professor Durward William John Cruickshank CCChem FRSC FRS
Formerly emeritus professor, UMIST. Died 13 July 2007, aged 83."

There were a number of others listed as for example, "Formerly
professor, University of California." If this is not the case
elsewhere, I will have to take it up with the editorial staff of
the magazine since I am also a member of the Royal Society of
Chemistry and I consider the usage insensitive. I don't think
you can lose an Emeritus title or that of Professor on
age-related retiral except for misconduct. Perhaps James Watson
may have just attained that distinction.

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
Maria - 20 Oct 2007 02:32 GMT
> Peter wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 61 lines]
> Watson
> may have just attained that distinction.

My opinion: The use of "formerly emeritus" is not only
insensitive, it's altogether wrong. However, "formally [or
former] professor at [name of University]" seems okay to me.
That is, you can retire from being a professor, but you
can't retire from being "emeritus."

Incidentally, I would tend to say "Professor Emeritus" and
not "emeritus professor."

Signature

Maria

Arcadian Rises - 20 Oct 2007 02:54 GMT
> > Peter wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 64 lines]
> My opinion: The use of "formerly emeritus" is not only
> insensitive, it's altogether wrong. However, "formally

obviously, a typo, since you wrote the word correctly one row above.

[or
> former] professor at [name of University]" seems okay to me.
> That is, you can retire from being a professor, but you
> can't retire from being "emeritus."

It makes sense, although logic is purely coincidental.

I know there are certain titles (e.g. "ambassador") that stick with
the person even after retirement, not to mention death, which does not
obliterate the title. I don't believe there are any rule about which
title is kept after retirement. I know people address Bill Clinton as
"Mr. President" but this is done out of deference and it is not
(politically?) correct.
Eric Schwartz - 25 Oct 2007 18:56 GMT
> I know there are certain titles (e.g. "ambassador") that stick with
> the person even after retirement, not to mention death, which does not
> obliterate the title. I don't believe there are any rule about which
> title is kept after retirement. I know people address Bill Clinton as
> "Mr. President" but this is done out of deference and it is not
> (politically?) correct.

It annoys the piss out of me, to be quite honest.  He's *not* the
President anymore, and calling him "Mr President" is attaching honors
to him he no longer possesses.  Not to mention that it will be
seriously weird if his wife is elected next year.  It annoys me when
people use that title with Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush as well,
so this isn't a bash on Clinton personally.

-=Eric
Mike Lyle - 30 Oct 2007 14:54 GMT
> > I know there are certain titles (e.g. "ambassador") that stick with
> > the person even after retirement, not to mention death, which does not
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> people use that title with Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush as well,
> so this isn't a bash on Clinton personally.

A pretty harmless honour, though: beats the hell out of giving them
peerages, like former UK Prime Ministers.

Signature

Mike.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Eric Schwartz - 30 Oct 2007 17:47 GMT
>> It annoys the piss out of me, to be quite honest.  He's *not* the
>> President anymore, and calling him "Mr President" is attaching honors
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> A pretty harmless honour, though: beats the hell out of giving them
> peerages, like former UK Prime Ministers.

What harm does it cause to give a former PM a peerage?  Especially if
it's a "life peerage" or whatever you call it where your children
don't inherit your title.

-=Eric, honestly curious.
Mike Lyle - 31 Oct 2007 00:16 GMT
> >> It annoys the piss out of me, to be quite honest.  He's *not* the
> >> President anymore, and calling him "Mr President" is attaching honors
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> -=Eric, honestly curious.

Well, calling a former president "Mr President" doesn't give him a
permanent seat in the legislature.

Signature

Mike.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Eric Schwartz - 31 Oct 2007 02:36 GMT
> Well, calling a former president "Mr President" doesn't give him a
> permanent seat in the legislature.

I'd forgotten about that.  I was under the (incredibly) vague
impression that the House of Lords had been more or less neutered some
time back, and existed largely to bloviate about stuff the House of
Commons was going to do anyhow.  I'm sure I don't need to express the
level of sheer ignorance (not willful; I just haven't had the time to
learn) I have about the current British system of government.
Corrections gratefully welcomed.

-=Eric
Garrett Wollman - 31 Oct 2007 04:55 GMT
>I'd forgotten about that.  I was under the (incredibly) vague
>impression that the House of Lords had been more or less neutered some
>time back, and existed largely to bloviate about stuff the House of
>Commons was going to do anyhow.

Someone who actually knows something is welcome to correct, but most
of them are probably asleep at the moment....

A short while back, most of the hereditary peers were kicked out of
the House of Lords.  They were allowed to elect a fraction of their
number to continue to sit, and I think at the time Mr. Bleah also
advised the Queen to give some of the more distinguished (or perhaps
more reliably Labour) ones additional life titles to allow them to
continue.  I assume the C of E bishops were all removed at the same
time.  But the Lords was effectively emasculated several decades ago
when its ability to obstruct legislation was limited, so now if the
Government really want something, they need only pass it in three
consecutive parliaments and it becomes law notwithstanding the
objections of the upper house.  I'm not sure how common this is among
parliaments modeled after Westminster (at least of those that still
have upper houses).[1]

-GAWollman

[1] It appears from the Wikipedia article that the Canadian Senate, at
least, has full legislative power outside of budgetary matters -- the
same, in theory, as the U.S. Senate -- but rarely exercises it, even
when (as now) the governing party in the Commons is vastly outnumbered
in the Senate.  This reminds me of a semi-ObAUE... when I was growing
up, we lived in Northern Vermont, and so I got most of my news from
Canadian television.  This was the late 1980s, and it took me a great
deal of time to catch on to the fact that all those Western Canadian
politicos were not asking for senate reform along the Libyan model.
Signature

Garrett A. Wollman   | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are
wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry
Opinions not those   | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape
of MIT or CSAIL.     | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness

Peter Duncanson - 31 Oct 2007 12:53 GMT
>A short while back, most of the hereditary peers were kicked out of
>the House of Lords.  They were allowed to elect a fraction of their
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>consecutive parliaments and it becomes law notwithstanding the
>objections of the upper house.

Some CofE bishops are still there:
http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/members/lords_types.cfm

   Different types of Lords
   
   The Lords currently has around 750 Members, and there are
   four different types: life Peers, Law Lords, bishops and
   elected hereditary Peers. Unlike MPs, the public do not
   elect the Lords. The majority are appointed by the Queen on
   the recommendation of the Prime Minister or of the House of
   Lords Appointments Commission.
   
   Life Peers
   
   Appointed for their lifetime only, these Lords' titles are
   not passed on to their children. The Queen formally appoints
   life Peers on the advice and recommendation of the Prime
   Minister.

   Law Lords (or Lords of Appeal in Ordinary)
   
   The Law Lords are salaried, full-time judges who carry out
   the judicial work of the House of Lords.
   
   The Queen appoints Law Lords on the recommendation of the
   Prime Minister, who receives advice from the Lord
   Chancellor. (This method of appointment will change when the
   relevant provisions of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005
   come into force and selection is made by a selection
   commission whose choice is forwarded to the Lord
   Chancellor.)
   
   Candidates usually come from serving judges of the Court of
   Appeal in England and Wales, the Court of Session in
   Scotland, and the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland.

   Archbishops and bishops
   
   A limited number of 26 Church of England archbishops and
   bishops sit in the House, passing their membership on to the
   next most senior bishop when they retire. The Archbishops of
   Canterbury and York traditionally get life peerages on
   retirement.

   Elected hereditary Peers
   
   The right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House
   of Lords was ended in 1999 by the House of Lords Act but 92
   Members were elected internally to remain until the next
   stage of the Lords reform process.

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Don Aitken - 31 Oct 2007 23:52 GMT
>>I'd forgotten about that.  I was under the (incredibly) vague
>>impression that the House of Lords had been more or less neutered some
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>more reliably Labour) ones additional life titles to allow them to
>continue.

Additional life titles were offered to all hereditary peers of first
creation (ie those who had been made peers themselves, rather than
inheriting the title) except for peers of the blood royal, who
therefore no longer sit in the HoL. Since less than half a dozen
hereditary titles had been created since 1964, this affected only a
small number of mostly very elderly people, all except one of whom
have since died (the exception being Lord Snowdon, who was born in
1930, and was by far the youngest).

It addition, the holders of two hereditary office retained their seats
- the Eerl Marshal (Duke of Norfolk) and the Lord Great Chamberlain
(Marquess of Cholmondeley).

>I assume the C of E bishops were all removed at the same
>time.

Nope. As Peter notes, 26 bishops and archbishops continue to sit. This
number has remained unchanged for several centuries. It is some of the
bishops, rather than all of them, because the total number of diocesan
bishops has increased substantially during that period.

>But the Lords was effectively emasculated several decades ago
>when its ability to obstruct legislation was limited, so now if the
>Government really want something, they need only pass it in three
>consecutive parliaments and it becomes law notwithstanding the
>objections of the upper house.

These are the provisions of the Parliament Act 1911. The delay was
reduced from three sessions (not three *parliaments*, which might be
anything up to fifteen years) to two, and from two years to one, by
the Parliament Act 1949. This still leaves the Lords with substantial
power, especially since the Parliament Act does not apply to Statutory
Instruments, which still require approval by both Houses. Nor does it
apply to Bills which *start* in the Lords, as is common for
legislation of constitutional importance.

Signature

Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"

Hatunen - 31 Oct 2007 04:50 GMT
>> > I know there are certain titles (e.g. "ambassador") that stick with
>> > the person even after retirement, not to mention death, which does
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>A pretty harmless honour, though: beats the hell out of giving them
>peerages, like former UK Prime Ministers.

The American habit of allowing people the honorific of former
titles is pretty widespread, not just for president. Anyon who
has been a judge may be called judge for the rest of his/her
life, and those who have held military rank of colonel/(naval
captain) will probably have that title the rest of their lives as
well. Eisenhower was probably called "General" as often as he was
called "Mr President" after he left the White House.

David Sarnoff, founder and head honcho of NBC insisted on being
called "General" long after he briefly served in WW2 with that
commission.

Signature

  ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
  *       Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow         *
  * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Peter Duncanson - 20 Oct 2007 13:47 GMT
>Incidentally, I would tend to say "Professor Emeritus" and
>not "emeritus professor."

This varies between institutions. Queen's University, Belfast,
where I worked for many years seems to use both "Emeritus
Professor" and "Professor Emeritus", and, in at least one
instance, the female equivalent "Professor Emerita".

To be more exact, I have found these titles in the obituary
lists in five annual Vice-Chancellor's reports from 1971-73 to
1978-79 and in the 2005-06 report.

It would take more delving to discover whether all the emeriti
were appointed by QUB. In most cases they clearly were.

At QUB the appointment to an emeritus professorship is not
automatic. "Emeritus" is not simply a synonym for "retired" as
some journalists appear to believe.

http://www.qub.ac.uk/directorates/AcademicStudentAffairs/AcademicAffairs/Honorar
yTitles/ProfessorEmeritus/

or http://tinyurl.com/2lozgw

   1.         Eligibility
   
   1.1       The title 'Professor Emeritus of Queen's
   University of Belfast' may be conferred on former professors
   who have made a distinguished contribution to the life of
   the University in one or more of the following areas:
   research and scholarship, teaching, administration and
   community service.   Honorary Professors who are members of
   University staff will be eligible to be considered for the
   title when they retire.
   ....
   4.         Rights, Entitlements and Duties
   
   4.1       There are no duties attached to the post of
   Emeritus Professor.    

Perhaps appointees are able to choose between the titles
"Professor Emeritus" and "Emeritus Professor".

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Arcadian Rises - 20 Oct 2007 02:39 GMT
On Oct 19, 7:44?pm, "James Silverton" <not.jim.silver...@verizon.not>
wrote:
>  Peter  wrote  on Fri, 19 Oct 2007 23:27:49 +0100:
>
[quoted text clipped - 41 lines]
> you can lose an Emeritus title or that of Professor on
> age-related retiral except for misconduct.

I agree.

By the same token, a widow would not name in the obit her dear
departed "my ex-husband", even though the "ex" label is technically
correct.
Jonathan Morton - 20 Oct 2007 10:35 GMT
>> There were a number of others listed as for example, "Formerly
>> professor, University of California." If this is not the case
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> I agree.

As do I.

> By the same token, a widow would not name in the obit her dear
> departed "my ex-husband", even though the "ex" label is technically
> correct.

Agreed on the first part. On the second point, I disagree. I am sure many
widows would consider themselves still married to their deceased husbands -
albeit without some of the perks [1] - and would never refer to a husband as
"ex" in those circumstances.

[1] My late father always insisted on spelling that as "perqs" on the ground
that it was an abbrieviation of "perquisite".

Regards

Jonathan
Janet Baraclough - 20 Oct 2007 15:37 GMT
The message <C5qdnZggBod3VoTanZ2dnUVZ8rCdnZ2d@bt.com>
from "Jonathan Morton" <jonathan@jonathanmortonbutignorethisbit.co.uk>
contains these words:

> >> There were a number of others listed as for example, "Formerly
> >> professor, University of California." If this is not the case
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> >
> > I agree.

> As do I.

> > By the same token, a widow would not name in the obit her dear
> > departed "my ex-husband", even though the "ex" label is technically
> > correct.

> Agreed on the first part. On the second point, I disagree. I am sure many
> widows would consider themselves still married to their deceased husbands -

 Unless they had divorced; in which case he would be described in obit
as her former husband and nobody would consider her to be a widow.

.The obit of a woman who has been married twice, divorced and widowed,
might refer to her as the widow of Tom and formerly married to Harry. I
expect there's a rule of  precedence for listing ex's :-)

  Janet.
Arcadian Rises - 20 Oct 2007 16:50 GMT
> The message <C5qdnZggBod3VoTanZ2dnUVZ8rCdn...@bt.com>
> from "Jonathan Morton" <jonat...@jonathanmortonbutignorethisbit.co.uk>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> > Agreed on the first part. On the second point, I disagree. I am sure many
> > widows would consider themselves still married to their deceased husbands -

>   Unless they had divorced; in which case he would be described in obit
> as her former husband and nobody would consider her to be a widow.

Unless she was his daughter; in which case he would be described in
obit as her daddy and nobody would consider her to be a widow.

In case you wonder, my assessment is as relevant as yours, since you
changed the initial data, i.e. a widow.

> .The obit of a woman who has been married twice, divorced and widowed,
> might refer to her as the widow of Tom and formerly married to Harry. I
> expect there's a rule of  precedence for listing ex's :-)

It depends on how they split and their relationship thereafter.

I know of a first ex-husband mentioned in an obit, which did not
mention the second one, since at the time of her untimely death they
were still in the middle of a custody/visitation battle.

>    Janet.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Jonathan Morton - 20 Oct 2007 19:58 GMT
> .The obit of a woman who has been married twice, divorced and widowed,
> might refer to her as the widow of Tom and formerly married to Harry. I
> expect there's a rule of  precedence for listing ex's :-)

"Redeem up, foreclose down". Oh, no, that was something different.

Regards

Jonathan
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2012 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.