"Gordon" <theo (AT) bestway (DOT) net> wrote

nothing like fruit with a kick.....hehe

"Nancy1" <nancy-dooley (AT) uiowa (DOT) edu> wrote

I'm not arguing... believe it or not, this has me interested... I'd
seriously like to know for sure, if what he said is correct or not, even
remotely.

I don't think the explanation is pretty far-fetched at all... it could be
completely wrong, but I do think it's perfectly logical. Of course, not
much about the English language is logical, so that right there sorta points
to it being wrong. *laffin*

43fan wrote:
It might be one of those instances where common usage/pronunciation
took over the original. It maybe started out as "...grant it,"
(although one would still need a subject, such as "I grant it," or "I
grant you" (which then makes even less sense), and eventually came to
be known and used as "granted." However, I think my original
assessment was correct. An assumption that "It is" precedes "granted."
In other words, "I'll give you that ...."

N.

("Latin is a dead language, dead as it can be. First it killed the
Romans; now it's killing me." When language doesn't change, it dies.)

"Nancy1" <nancy-dooley (AT) uiowa (DOT) edu> wrote

This is where I disagree... "I grant it" makes perfect sense to me, and I'm
pretty sure I've actually heard that phrase used here in this area(western
MD, western PA, NW VA, easter WV)... Maybe that's why "grant it" doesn't
seem all that out of place to me... (even though I do say "granted").

A girl I used to work with used(still does as far as I know) the phrase "of
a night" instead of "at night"... this came from her grandmother and I'm
sure also because of the area she grew up in.



, and eventually came to

43fan wrote:
Well, have at it - my nit-picky correction was on the mark, it seems.
According to the etymology, the verb is first attested c. 1300. To
take (something) for granted (1615) is from the sense of "admitted,
acknowledged." (This is from the OE etymology experts.)

This is the appropriate definition/spelling, as the original poster
used.

That's not to say regional usages aren't different, but those
differences probably arise from ignorance of proper spelling, just as
many people don't know how to spell other words or phrases properly
because they acquire much of their knowledge of words from hearing them
rather than from reading them.

N.

Well.... I'd say that the original poster was conceding the fact that
Wendell Scott only had one win, wouldn't you?

Therefore:

Concede:
2: be willing to concede; "I grant you this much"

or "I grant it that..."... conceding the point, correct?

And, while certainly not "proving" that it's proper English, this passage
from
Pliny the Younger (A.D. 62?-c.A.D. 113). Letters.
The Harvard Classics. 1909-14.
LVIII. To Arrianus

"for I look upon it as highly presuming to pretend to guess, before a case
is heard, what time it will require, and to set limits to an affair before
one is acquainted with its extent; especially as the first and most sacred
duty of a judge is patience, which constitutes an important part of justice.
But this, it is objected, would give an opening to much superfluous matter:
(I grant it may); yet is it not better to hear too much than not to hear
enough? "
-----------------
Is that not the same as saying "I grant it that Wendell Scott only has one
win"? Or... "Grant it, he only has one win"...

43fan wrote:
Yes, but this first example of yours AND Pliny both have a subject (I);
in the original poster's example, there is no subject.

recognize your example "Grant it, he only has one win," as proper
usage. It needs a subject. The etymology I quoted does not require a
subject. Nobody is arguing about the phrase, "I grant it," or "I grant
you,..." - merely that saying "Grant it," instead of the most
appropriate, "Granted," was improper and most likely was used because
the writer either mis-typed or was not familiar with the spelling of
"granted."

To quote some regional folk: "I reckin ever'one is tired of this now,
and we should give 'er a rest." If you don't feel we have exhausted
rational discussion of the usage based on what we have in front of us,
then you have my permission to carry on without me.

N.

"Nancy1" <nancy-dooley (AT) uiowa (DOT) edu> wrote in message


if we're gonna talk pet peeves, lets talk about quoting 150 irrelevant lines
of text befor you reply....