was co-opted but refused

Post by Yurui Liu
Hi,
Is there any contradiction in the following sentence?
The committee co-opted John, but he refused to join it.
I'd appreciate your help.

I'd say 'the committee offered to co-opt John, but he refused the offer'.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

Mark Brader

2019-11-30 09:37:40 UTC

Post by Yurui Liu
Is there any contradiction in the following sentence?
The committee co-opted John, but he refused to join it.

Doesn't work for me. "Co-opted" implies that they had the power to
compel him to join.

Post by charles
I'd say 'the committee offered to co-opt John, but he refused the offer'.

I'd say "tried to co-opt", implying that they had no more power than to try.

--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Jargon leakage is getting to be a real problem;
***@vex.net | sb should do sth about it." --R.H. Draney

Yurui Liu

2019-11-30 10:08:16 UTC

Mark Brader於 2019年11月30日星期六 UTC+8下午5時37分48秒寫道：

Post by Yurui Liu
Is there any contradiction in the following sentence?
The committee co-opted John, but he refused to join it.

Doesn't work for me. "Co-opted" implies that they had the power to
compel him to join.

Does "The committee co-opted John" entail John became a member?

Post by charles
I'd say 'the committee offered to co-opt John, but he refused the offer'.

I'd say "tried to co-opt", implying that they had no more power than to try.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Jargon leakage is getting to be a real problem;

Richard Heathfield

2019-11-30 10:25:22 UTC

Post by Yurui Liu
Is there any contradiction in the following sentence?
The committee co-opted John, but he refused to join it.

Doesn't work for me. "Co-opted" implies that they had the power to
compel him to join.

Does it?

There are, I think, at least two distinct senses of "co-opt". One is the
sense you indicate, but (at least in the UK) the word "co-opt" is also
used to describe the process of a committee selecting someone to join
them, but without any sense of compulsion.

I was co-opted onto a board of governors once, and I said "yes" - but I
could easily have said "no", and there's nothing they could have done
about it.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

Athel Cornish-Bowden

2019-11-30 10:31:35 UTC

Post by Yurui Liu
Is there any contradiction in the following sentence?
The committee co-opted John, but he refused to join it.

Doesn't work for me. "Co-opted" implies that they had the power to
compel him to join.

Does it?

Of course it doesn't.

Post by Richard Heathfield
There are, I think, at least two distinct senses of "co-opt". One is
the sense you indicate, but (at least in the UK) the word "co-opt" is
also used to describe the process of a committee selecting someone to
join them, but without any sense of compulsion.
I was co-opted onto a board of governors once, and I said "yes" - but I
could easily have said "no", and there's nothing they could have done
about it.

--
athel

Richard Heathfield

2019-11-30 10:43:12 UTC

Post by Yurui Liu
Is there any contradiction in the following sentence?
The committee co-opted John, but he refused to join it.

Doesn't work for me. "Co-opted" implies that they had the power to
compel him to join.

Does it?

Of course it doesn't.

Doesn't it?

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Yes, yes, I know! I'm just getting my hat, okay?

Athel Cornish-Bowden

2019-11-30 11:03:56 UTC

Post by Yurui Liu
Is there any contradiction in the following sentence?
The committee co-opted John, but he refused to join it.

Doesn't work for me. "Co-opted" implies that they had the power to
compel him to join.

Does it?

Of course it doesn't.

Doesn't it?

It doesn't imply compulsion (except, perhaps to Mark Brader). No
committee that I've been a member of has thought it had the power to
force people in.

--
athel

Richard Heathfield

2019-11-30 11:18:55 UTC

Post by Yurui Liu
Is there any contradiction in the following sentence?
The committee co-opted John, but he refused to join it.

Doesn't work for me. "Co-opted" implies that they had the power to
compel him to join.

Does it?

Of course it doesn't.

Doesn't it?

It doesn't imply compulsion (except, perhaps to Mark Brader). No
committee that I've been a member of has thought it had the power to
force people in.

Well, my reply was of course tongue-in-cheek; but, before replying to
Mark, I did take the time to look the word up in two or three online
dictionaries, and each of them mentioned the "compulsion" sense as well
as the "committee extension" (or, for the more cynical amongst us, "jobs
for the boys") sense. So I don't think Mark is just making stuff up.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

Jerry Friedman

2019-11-30 16:46:00 UTC

Post by Yurui Liu
Is there any contradiction in the following sentence?
The committee co-opted John, but he refused to join it.

Doesn't work for me. "Co-opted" implies that they had the power to
compel him to join.

Does it?

Of course it doesn't.

Doesn't it?

It doesn't imply compulsion (except, perhaps to Mark Brader). No
committee that I've been a member of has thought it had the power to
force people in.

Indeed not. "Co-opt" in the English I know is either "force someone to
join" (sometimes "force" is an exaggeration) or "induce someone to join,
especially to join what we used to call the Establishment, against their
principles". "The committee co-opted John" could mean that John was a
prominent member of the opposition, but the committee got him to sell
out to them, probably by offering him a job.

I know the "offer to join" meaning only from a previous discussion in
a.u.e., in which Steve Hayes was prominent.

--
Jerry Friedman takes back every criticism he ever made of the Committee.
It's an entirely benign influence on a.u.e.

Katy Jennison

2019-11-30 17:06:11 UTC

Post by Yurui Liu
Is there any contradiction in the following sentence?
The committee co-opted John, but he refused to join it.

Doesn't work for me. "Co-opted" implies that they had the power to
compel him to join.

Does it?

Of course it doesn't.

Doesn't it?

It doesn't imply compulsion (except, perhaps to Mark Brader). No
committee that I've been a member of has thought it had the power to
force people in.

Well, my reply was of course tongue-in-cheek; but, before replying to
Mark, I did take the time to look the word up in two or three online
dictionaries, and each of them mentioned the "compulsion" sense as
well as the "committee extension" (or, for the more cynical amongst
us, "jobs for the boys") sense. So I don't think Mark is just making
stuff up.

Indeed not. "Co-opt" in the English I know is either "force someone to
join" (sometimes "force" is an exaggeration) or "induce someone to join,
especially to join what we used to call the Establishment, against their
principles". "The committee co-opted John" could mean that John was a
prominent member of the opposition, but the committee got him to sell
out to them, probably by offering him a job.
I know the "offer to join" meaning only from a previous discussion in
a.u.e., in which Steve Hayes was prominent.

It does seem to be Pondial.

Here someone might be co-opted onto a committee if the rest of the
committee really wanted them on it (because of their unique skill set,
say) but the standing orders specified a particular number of committee
members and all the places were already filled. Or if the potential
co-optee joined the society in question at some point after the AGM at
which the committee members were elected, so the new person couldn't be
elected to the committee until the next AGM but meanwhile could be
c-opted.

Those sorts of circumstances. No force or inducements (though the
committee meetings might end in the pub, or in tea and home-made cake).

--
Katy Jennison

charles

2019-11-30 17:54:42 UTC

Is there any contradiction in the following sentence? The
committee co-opted John, but he refused to join it.

Doesn't work for me. "Co-opted" implies that they had the power
to compel him to join.

Does it?

Of course it doesn't.

Doesn't it?

It doesn't imply compulsion (except, perhaps to Mark Brader). No
committee that I've been a member of has thought it had the power to
force people in.

Well, my reply was of course tongue-in-cheek; but, before replying to
Mark, I did take the time to look the word up in two or three online
dictionaries, and each of them mentioned the "compulsion" sense as
well as the "committee extension" (or, for the more cynical amongst
us, "jobs for the boys") sense. So I don't think Mark is just making
stuff up.

Indeed not. "Co-opt" in the English I know is either "force someone to
join" (sometimes "force" is an exaggeration) or "induce someone to
join, especially to join what we used to call the Establishment,
against their principles". "The committee co-opted John" could mean
that John was a prominent member of the opposition, but the committee
got him to sell out to them, probably by offering him a job.
I know the "offer to join" meaning only from a previous discussion in
a.u.e., in which Steve Hayes was prominent.

It does seem to be Pondial.
Here someone might be co-opted onto a committee if the rest of the
committee really wanted them on it (because of their unique skill set,
say) but the standing orders specified a particular number of committee
members and all the places were already filled. Or if the potential
co-optee joined the society in question at some point after the AGM at
which the committee members were elected, so the new person couldn't be
elected to the committee until the next AGM but meanwhile could be
c-opted.
Those sorts of circumstances. No force or inducements (though the
committee meetings might end in the pub, or in tea and home-made cake).

It even applies a the bottom end of local government. Parish Councils are
allowed to co-pt people to fill vacancies (caused by resignation or death,
we've had both in then last few months)

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

Peter Young

2019-11-30 19:20:10 UTC

Post by Yurui Liu
Is there any contradiction in the following sentence?
The committee co-opted John, but he refused to join it.

Doesn't work for me. "Co-opted" implies that they had the power to
compel him to join.

Does it?

Of course it doesn't.

Doesn't it?

It doesn't imply compulsion (except, perhaps to Mark Brader). No
committee that I've been a member of has thought it had the power to
force people in.

Well, my reply was of course tongue-in-cheek; but, before replying to
Mark, I did take the time to look the word up in two or three online
dictionaries, and each of them mentioned the "compulsion" sense as
well as the "committee extension" (or, for the more cynical amongst
us, "jobs for the boys") sense. So I don't think Mark is just making
stuff up.

Indeed not. "Co-opt" in the English I know is either "force someone to
join" (sometimes "force" is an exaggeration) or "induce someone to join,
especially to join what we used to call the Establishment, against their
principles". "The committee co-opted John" could mean that John was a
prominent member of the opposition, but the committee got him to sell
out to them, probably by offering him a job.
I know the "offer to join" meaning only from a previous discussion in
a.u.e., in which Steve Hayes was prominent.

It does seem to be Pondial.
Here someone might be co-opted onto a committee if the rest of the
committee really wanted them on it (because of their unique skill set,
say) but the standing orders specified a particular number of committee
members and all the places were already filled. Or if the potential
co-optee joined the society in question at some point after the AGM at
which the committee members were elected, so the new person couldn't be
elected to the committee until the next AGM but meanwhile could be
c-opted.
Those sorts of circumstances. No force or inducements (though the
committee meetings might end in the pub, or in tea and home-made cake).

I was co-opted to a committee 1in exactly those circumstances and then
elected at the AG. I'm still waiting for the pub, tea and home-made cake.

Peter.

--
Peter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004.
(US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist) (AUE Hg)
Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired.
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk

Sam Plusnet

2019-11-30 19:38:29 UTC

Post by Yurui Liu
Is there any contradiction in the following sentence?
The committee co-opted John, but he refused to join it.

Doesn't work for me. "Co-opted" implies that they had the power to
compel him to join.

Does it?

Of course it doesn't.

Doesn't it?

It doesn't imply compulsion (except, perhaps to Mark Brader). No
committee that I've been a member of has thought it had the power to
force people in.

Well, my reply was of course tongue-in-cheek; but, before replying to
Mark, I did take the time to look the word up in two or three online
dictionaries, and each of them mentioned the "compulsion" sense as
well as the "committee extension" (or, for the more cynical amongst
us, "jobs for the boys") sense. So I don't think Mark is just making
stuff up.

Indeed not. "Co-opt" in the English I know is either "force someone
to join" (sometimes "force" is an exaggeration) or "induce someone to
join, especially to join what we used to call the Establishment,
against their principles". "The committee co-opted John" could mean
that John was a prominent member of the opposition, but the committee
got him to sell out to them, probably by offering him a job.
I know the "offer to join" meaning only from a previous discussion in
a.u.e., in which Steve Hayes was prominent.

It does seem to be Pondial.
Here someone might be co-opted onto a committee if the rest of the
committee really wanted them on it (because of their unique skill set,
say) but the standing orders specified a particular number of committee
members and all the places were already filled. Or if the potential
co-optee joined the society in question at some point after the AGM at
which the committee members were elected, so the new person couldn't be
elected to the committee until the next AGM but meanwhile could be c-opted.
Those sorts of circumstances. No force or inducements (though the
committee meetings might end in the pub, or in tea and home-made cake).

An employee, or member of the armed forces etc. might be "voluntold" for
service on a committee.
All the forms of free choice may be duly observed, but the reality can
be different.

--
Sam Plusnet

Mark Brader

2019-11-30 21:05:20 UTC

Post by Katy Jennison
It does seem to be Pondial.

So let's move on to another point: how does "co-opt" come to have either
version of this meaning? Etymologically, it sounds as though it should
mean that two sides work together to select the same choice -- and not
like getting someone to join group that they weren't going to join.

Post by Sam Plusnet
An employee, or member of the armed forces etc. might be "voluntold" for
service on a committee.

Is that word-form standard Rightpondianly? I would have said "be
volunteered" (in the passive, the verb becomes slangily ironic).

--
Mark Brader | ...roll the imaginary 60-meter sphere across the landscape
Toronto | (for safety reasons, do not use a real sphere).
***@vex.net | --Randall Munroe

My text in this article is in the public domain.

Sam Plusnet

2019-11-30 22:33:54 UTC

Post by Katy Jennison
It does seem to be Pondial.

Post by Sam Plusnet
An employee, or member of the armed forces etc. might be "voluntold" for
service on a committee.

Is that word-form standard Rightpondianly? I would have said "be
volunteered" (in the passive, the verb becomes slangily ironic).

No. I came across it in fiction some time ago and can't recall hearing
or reading it elsewhere. IIRC the author (and the story) were both
based in the US.

--
Sam Plusnet

Mark Brader

2019-12-01 00:37:13 UTC

Post by Mark Brader
I would have said "be
volunteered" (in the passive, the verb becomes slangily ironic).

Afterthought: I mean in transitive use, whether passive or active.

--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Effective immediately, all memos are to be written
***@vex.net | in clear, active-voice English." -- US gov't memo

Peter Duncanson [BrE]

2019-12-02 11:48:52 UTC

Post by Mark Brader
I would have said "be
volunteered" (in the passive, the verb becomes slangily ironic).

Afterthought: I mean in transitive use, whether passive or active.

I have certainly met the use of "volunteered" as a transitive verb. It
should be thought of as ironic since the individual is chosen rather
than volunteering.

In a military context - a group of people are addressed by their leader:
"We need three volunteers for XYZ.
<points to individuals> You, you and you are volunteered."

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

Richard Heathfield

2019-12-02 12:35:20 UTC

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by Mark Brader
I would have said "be
volunteered" (in the passive, the verb becomes slangily ironic).

Afterthought: I mean in transitive use, whether passive or active.

I have certainly met the use of "volunteered" as a transitive verb. It
should be thought of as ironic since the individual is chosen rather
than volunteering.
"We need three volunteers for XYZ.
<points to individuals> You, you and you are volunteered."

Hazy memory from a 1970s RD tail-filler: there's a VIP visit to the
camp, and a corporal asks if any of his squad has experience of Rolls
Royces. Several men immediately offer their services; the quickest is
led outside, where indeed are to be found a rather nice Roller, a
bucket, and a sponge.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

Jerry Friedman

2019-12-01 02:39:20 UTC

Post by Katy Jennison
It does seem to be Pondial.

Post by Sam Plusnet
An employee, or member of the armed forces etc. might be "voluntold" for
service on a committee.

Is that word-form standard Rightpondianly? I would have said "be
volunteered" (in the passive, the verb becomes slangily ironic).

That's my usage too, but "voluntold" seems to have appeared out of
nowhere and become popular in the last few years. I've seen and heard
it used like "told", so Sam's sentence would be "An employee... might be
'voluntold' to serve on a committee."

--
Jerry Friedman

Ken Blake

2019-12-01 19:34:12 UTC

Post by Katy Jennison
It does seem to be Pondial.

Post by Sam Plusnet
An employee, or member of the armed forces etc. might be "voluntold" for
service on a committee.

Is that word-form standard Rightpondianly? I would have said "be
volunteered" (in the passive, the verb becomes slangily ironic).

That's new to me. I've never seen or heard it.

--
Ken

Jerry Friedman

2019-11-30 20:31:41 UTC

Post by Yurui Liu
Is there any contradiction in the following sentence?
The committee co-opted John, but he refused to join it.

Doesn't work for me. "Co-opted" implies that they had the power to
compel him to join.

Does it?

Of course it doesn't.

Doesn't it?

It doesn't imply compulsion (except, perhaps to Mark Brader). No
committee that I've been a member of has thought it had the power to
force people in.

Well, my reply was of course tongue-in-cheek; but, before replying to
Mark, I did take the time to look the word up in two or three online
dictionaries, and each of them mentioned the "compulsion" sense as
well as the "committee extension" (or, for the more cynical amongst
us, "jobs for the boys") sense. So I don't think Mark is just making
stuff up.

Indeed not. "Co-opt" in the English I know is either "force someone
to join" (sometimes "force" is an exaggeration) or "induce someone to
join, especially to join what we used to call the Establishment,
against their principles". "The committee co-opted John" could mean
that John was a prominent member of the opposition, but the committee
got him to sell out to them, probably by offering him a job.
I know the "offer to join" meaning only from a previous discussion in
a.u.e., in which Steve Hayes was prominent.

It does seem to be Pondial.
Here someone might be co-opted onto a committee if the rest of the
committee really wanted them on it (because of their unique skill set,
say) but the standing orders specified a particular number of committee
members and all the places were already filled. Or if the potential
co-optee joined the society in question at some point after the AGM at
which the committee members were elected, so the new person couldn't be
elected to the committee until the next AGM but meanwhile could be c-opted.

It's a whole different world. I've never heard of an American committee
with a specified number of members. Publicly owned corporations and big
non-profits have Annual General Meetings, but I don't think they do
much. I just checked the Web page of the Audubon Society (the only
organization I belong to), and the only thing they say happened at their
annual meeting is that the directors were elected. I imagine the
directors fill places on committees at other times. I've never heard of
an organization that fills places on committees only at an annual
meeting, and I haven't heard that organizations small enough to meet in
a bar have any requirement for an annual meeting.

Post by Katy Jennison
Those sorts of circumstances. No force or inducements (though the
committee meetings might end in the pub, or in tea and home-made cake).

And does a prospective member plied with tea and home-made cake
sometimes say, "Well, since you're /forcing/ me..."?

--
Jerry Friedman

Peter Moylan

2019-12-01 01:25:53 UTC

Post by Katy Jennison
Here someone might be co-opted onto a committee if the rest of the
committee really wanted them on it (because of their unique skill
set, say) but the standing orders specified a particular number of
committee members and all the places were already filled. Or if the
potential co-optee joined the society in question at some point after
the AGM at which the committee members were elected, so the new
person couldn't be elected to the committee until the next AGM but
meanwhile could be c-opted.
Those sorts of circumstances. No force or inducements (though the
committee meetings might end in the pub, or in tea and home-made cake).

I'm a member of the organising committee of our choir. Now and then we
co-opt someone under the title of "organiser in training". It probably
does take about a year to learn how to plan future performances, because
you need to know who to contact, which performance venues might be
available, etc.

One of the more difficult jobs is the planning needed to resign from the
committee.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

Peter T. Daniels

2019-11-30 15:18:03 UTC

Post by Yurui Liu
Is there any contradiction in the following sentence?
The committee co-opted John, but he refused to join it.

Doesn't work for me. "Co-opted" implies that they had the power to
compel him to join.

Does it?

Of course it doesn't.

Doesn't it?

It doesn't imply compulsion (except, perhaps to Mark Brader). No
committee that I've been a member of has thought it had the power to
force people in.

Someone has probably noted this below, but you seem to have discovered
yet another Pondian difference.

I wonder how many back-and-forths I will come to hereinafter.

Mark Brader

2019-11-30 11:55:14 UTC

Post by Yurui Liu
Is there any contradiction in the following sentence?
The committee co-opted John, but he refused to join it.

Doesn't work for me.Â "Co-opted" implies that they had the power to
compel him to join.

Does it?

Of course it doesn't.

Doesn't it?

Of course it does. :-)

--
Mark Brader | "If the standard says that [things] depend on the
Toronto | phase of the moon, the programmer should be prepared
***@vex.net | to look out the window as necessary." -- Chris Torek

Janet

2019-11-30 13:57:50 UTC

In article <JpqdnSqjXO0_xX_AnZ2dnUU7-***@giganews.com>, ***@vex.net
says...

Post by Yurui Liu
Is there any contradiction in the following sentence?
The committee co-opted John, but he refused to join it.

Doesn't work for me. "Co-opted" implies that they had the power to
compel him to join.

Does it?

Of course it doesn't.

Doesn't it?

Of course it does. :-)

Not

Janet

Richard Heathfield

2019-11-30 13:58:56 UTC

Post by Janet
says...

Post by Yurui Liu
Is there any contradiction in the following sentence?
The committee co-opted John, but he refused to join it.

Doesn't work for me.Â "Co-opted" implies that they had the power to
compel him to join.

Does it?

Of course it doesn't.

Doesn't it?

Of course it does. :-)

Not
Janet

Not Janet?

My mistake. I thought you were. (Sorry.)

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

Janet

2019-11-30 15:14:21 UTC

Post by Janet
says...

Post by Yurui Liu
Is there any contradiction in the following sentence?
The committee co-opted John, but he refused to join it.

Doesn't work for me. "Co-opted" implies that they had the power to
compel him to join.

Does it?

Of course it doesn't.

Doesn't it?

Of course it does. :-)

Not
Janet

Not Janet?
My mistake. I thought you were. (Sorry.)

You are Dick, yes?

Janet

Richard Heathfield

2019-11-30 15:17:56 UTC

Post by Janet

Post by Janet
says...

Post by Yurui Liu
Is there any contradiction in the following sentence?
The committee co-opted John, but he refused to join it.

Doesn't work for me.Â "Co-opted" implies that they had the power to
compel him to join.

Does it?

Of course it doesn't.

Doesn't it?

Of course it does. :-)

Not
Janet

Not Janet?
My mistake. I thought you were. (Sorry.)

You are Dick, yes?

Ah well; I suppose I had that coming. My reply was a little too quirky
even for my own tastes. (In fact, it was one of those rare occasions
when, immediately after clicking "Send", I found myself wishing there
were an "Unsend" button.)

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

Peter Moylan

2019-12-01 03:38:23 UTC

Post by Richard Heathfield
Ah well; I suppose I had that coming. My reply was a little too
quirky even for my own tastes. (In fact, it was one of those rare
occasions when, immediately after clicking "Send", I found myself
wishing there were an "Unsend" button.)

Unsend really worked back in the days when your news server contacted
the upstream server only once or twice a day. It was one of the few
advantages of having an intermittent network connection. These days, a
"cancel" will go chasing your post around the net without ever catching
up with it.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

CDB

2019-11-30 13:20:04 UTC

Is there any contradiction in the following sentence? The
committee co-opted John, but he refused to join it.

Doesn't work for me. "Co-opted" implies that they had the
power to compel him to join.

Does it?

Of course it doesn't.

Doesn't it?

Ah.

CDB

2019-11-30 13:19:56 UTC

Post by Yurui Liu
Is there any contradiction in the following sentence?
The committee co-opted John, but he refused to join it.

Doesn't work for me. "Co-opted" implies that they had the power to
compel him to join.

Does it?

Of course it doesn't.

Post by Richard Heathfield
There are, I think, at least two distinct senses of "co-opt". One is
the sense you indicate, but (at least in the UK) the word "co-opt" is
also used to describe the process of a committee selecting someone to
join them, but without any sense of compulsion.
I was co-opted onto a board of governors once, and I said "yes" - but
I could easily have said "no", and there's nothing they could have
done about it.

That difference may be pondial. If someone refuses to be co-opted over
here, they aren't co-opted.

Rich Ulrich

2019-12-01 04:37:08 UTC

Post by Yurui Liu
Is there any contradiction in the following sentence?
The committee co-opted John, but he refused to join it.

Doesn't work for me. "Co-opted" implies that they had the power to
compel him to join.

Does it?

Of course it doesn't.

Post by Richard Heathfield
There are, I think, at least two distinct senses of "co-opt". One is
the sense you indicate, but (at least in the UK) the word "co-opt" is
also used to describe the process of a committee selecting someone to
join them, but without any sense of compulsion.
I was co-opted onto a board of governors once, and I said "yes" - but
I could easily have said "no", and there's nothing they could have
done about it.

That difference may be pondial. If someone refuses to be co-opted over
here, they aren't co-opted.

I'm comfortable with saying that someone was
co-opted, or they refused to be co-opted.

I see a bit of irony (overstatement of the force
employed) in the original step of co-opting.

--
Rich Ulrich

b***@shaw.ca

2019-12-01 07:19:15 UTC

Post by Rich Ulrich

Post by Yurui Liu
Is there any contradiction in the following sentence?
The committee co-opted John, but he refused to join it.

Doesn't work for me. "Co-opted" implies that they had the power to
compel him to join.

Does it?

Of course it doesn't.

Post by Richard Heathfield
There are, I think, at least two distinct senses of "co-opt". One is
the sense you indicate, but (at least in the UK) the word "co-opt" is
also used to describe the process of a committee selecting someone to
join them, but without any sense of compulsion.
I was co-opted onto a board of governors once, and I said "yes" - but
I could easily have said "no", and there's nothing they could have
done about it.

That difference may be pondial. If someone refuses to be co-opted over
here, they aren't co-opted.

I'm comfortable with saying that someone was
co-opted, or they refused to be co-opted.
I see a bit of irony (overstatement of the force
employed) in the original step of co-opting.

It's a little milder than dragooning, as I understand it.

bill

CDB

2019-12-01 13:37:53 UTC

Post by Yurui Liu
Is there any contradiction in the following sentence?
The committee co-opted John, but he refused to join it.

Doesn't work for me. "Co-opted" implies that they had the
power to compel him to join.

Does it?

Of course it doesn't.

Post by Richard Heathfield
There are, I think, at least two distinct senses of "co-opt".
One is the sense you indicate, but (at least in the UK) the
word "co-opt" is also used to describe the process of a
committee selecting someone to join them, but without any
sense of compulsion.
I was co-opted onto a board of governors once, and I said
"yes" - but I could easily have said "no", and there's nothing
they could have done about it.

That difference may be pondial. If someone refuses to be co-opted
over here, they aren't co-opted.

I'm comfortable with saying that someone was co-opted, or they
refused to be co-opted.

Me too. My cavil (not here, but in this thread) was directed at the
idea of offering to co-opt someone -- in NAmE usage only, as it appears.

I see a bit of irony (overstatement of the force employed) in the
original step of co-opting.

I agree again, that "force" is overstating the case. AIR, my posting
(not here) said something about a certain lack of will on the part of
the selectee. The committee picks them and gets them to volunteer.

Further to what I said above, that is co-optation only if successful;
it's the whole process, not merely an offer of selection.

Madhu

2019-11-30 14:36:20 UTC

Post by Mark Brader
Doesn't work for me. "Co-opted" implies that they had the power to
compel him to join.

Does it?
There are, I think, at least two distinct senses of "co-opt". One is
the sense you indicate, but (at least in the UK) the word "co-opt" is
also used to describe the process of a committee selecting someone to
join them, but without any sense of compulsion.
I was co-opted onto a board of governors once, and I said "yes" - but
I could easily have said "no", and there's nothing they could have
done about it.

It's easier in soviet russua where the committee volunteer you.

CDB

2019-11-30 13:19:12 UTC

Is there any contradiction in the following sentence? The
committee co-opted John, but he refused to join it.

Doesn't work for me. "Co-opted" implies that they had the power to
compel him to join.

Post by charles
I'd say 'the committee offered to co-opt John, but he refused the offer'.

I'd say "tried to co-opt", implying that they had no more power than to try.

I agree. Also, IMO, "co-opt" implies some lack of choice on the part of
the co-optee, so "offered" would only work when the offer was to some
third party (and then John wouldn't be in a position to refuse it as he
does above).

Peter T. Daniels

2019-11-30 15:19:16 UTC

Is there any contradiction in the following sentence? The
committee co-opted John, but he refused to join it.

Doesn't work for me. "Co-opted" implies that they had the power to
compel him to join.

Post by charles
I'd say 'the committee offered to co-opt John, but he refused the offer'.

I'd say "tried to co-opt", implying that they had no more power than to try.

Does the Godfather co-opt a potential minion when he makes him an offer
he can't refuse?

charles

2019-11-30 15:36:44 UTC

Is there any contradiction in the following sentence? The
committee co-opted John, but he refused to join it.

Doesn't work for me. "Co-opted" implies that they had the power to
compel him to join.

Post by charles
I'd say 'the committee offered to co-opt John, but he refused the offer'.

I'd say "tried to co-opt", implying that they had no more power than to try.

Does the Godfather co-opt a potential minion when he makes him an offer
he can't refuse?

a genuine Godfather would be asked by the parents,

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

CDB

2019-11-30 19:57:01 UTC

Is there any contradiction in the following sentence? The
committee co-opted John, but he refused to join it.

Doesn't work for me. "Co-opted" implies that they had the power
to compel him to join.

Post by charles
I'd say 'the committee offered to co-opt John, but he refused the offer'.

I'd say "tried to co-opt", implying that they had no more power than to try.

I agree. Also, IMO, "co-opt" implies some lack of choice on the
part of the co-optee, so "offered" would only work when the offer
was to some third party (and then John wouldn't be in a position to
refuse it as he does above).

Does the Godfather co-opt a potential minion when he makes him an
offer he can't refuse?

It seems possible. I don't watch fictional presentations of Mafiosi or
Nazis, for fear of encouraging them.

I like the Minions, though. They do a fine version of J Bieber's
version of "Despacito".

b***@aol.com

2019-11-30 20:16:41 UTC

Is there any contradiction in the following sentence? The
committee co-opted John, but he refused to join it.

Doesn't work for me. "Co-opted" implies that they had the power
to compel him to join.

Post by charles
I'd say 'the committee offered to co-opt John, but he refused the offer'.

I'd say "tried to co-opt", implying that they had no more power than to try.

I agree. Also, IMO, "co-opt" implies some lack of choice on the
part of the co-optee, so "offered" would only work when the offer
was to some third party (and then John wouldn't be in a position to
refuse it as he does above).

Does the Godfather co-opt a potential minion when he makes him an
offer he can't refuse?

It seems possible. I don't watch fictional presentations of Mafiosi or
Nazis, for fear of encouraging them.
I like the Minions, though. They do a fine version of J Bieber's
version of "Despacito".

Minion, allons voir si la rose...

Peter Moylan

2019-12-01 03:51:53 UTC

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by CDB
I like the Minions, though. They do a fine version of J Bieber's
version of "Despacito".

Minion, allons voir si la rose...

I'll have the filet minion.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

Michele

2019-12-01 04:35:12 UTC

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by CDB
I like the Minions, though. They do a fine version of J Bieber's
version of "Despacito".

Minion, allons voir si la rose...

I'll have the filet minion.

Miam !

--
Michèle

CDB

2019-12-01 13:38:08 UTC

Post by b***@aol.com

Is there any contradiction in the following sentence? The
committee co-opted John, but he refused to join it.

Doesn't work for me. "Co-opted" implies that they had the power
to compel him to join.

Post by charles
I'd say 'the committee offered to co-opt John, but he refused the offer'.

I'd say "tried to co-opt", implying that they had no more power than to try.

I agree. Also, IMO, "co-opt" implies some lack of choice on the
part of the co-optee, so "offered" would only work when the offer
was to some third party (and then John wouldn't be in a position to
refuse it as he does above).

Does the Godfather co-opt a potential minion when he makes him an
offer he can't refuse?

It seems possible. I don't watch fictional presentations of Mafiosi or
Nazis, for fear of encouraging them.
I like the Minions, though. They do a fine version of J Bieber's
version of "Despacito".

Minion, allons voir si la rose...

Jaundiced little cuties. You have encouraged me; be it on your head.

Peter Duncanson [BrE]

2019-12-02 14:36:35 UTC

Is there any contradiction in the following sentence? The
committee co-opted John, but he refused to join it.

Doesn't work for me. "Co-opted" implies that they had the power to
compel him to join.

Post by charles
I'd say 'the committee offered to co-opt John, but he refused the offer'.

I'd say "tried to co-opt", implying that they had no more power than to try.

This definition of "co-opt" matches my experience of the use of the word
in BrE:
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/co-opt

co-opt
verb
[with object]

1 Appoint to membership of a committee or other body by invitation
of the existing members.
‘the committee may co-opt additional members for special
purposes’
‘Anyone who feels they have some time to spare or a particular
expertise they can still volunteer and be co-opted to fill vacant
committee positions - rising to the challenges and becoming
involved is very rewarding.’

1.1 Divert to or use in a role different from the usual or original
one.
with object and infinitive ‘social scientists were co-opted to
work with the development agencies’

1.2 Adopt (an idea or policy) for one's own use.
‘the green parties have had most of their ideas co-opted by
bigger parties’

(Selected quotations only)

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

s***@my-deja.com

2019-12-02 17:47:16 UTC

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Is there any contradiction in the following sentence? The
committee co-opted John, but he refused to join it.

Doesn't work for me. "Co-opted" implies that they had the power to
compel him to join.

Post by charles
I'd say 'the committee offered to co-opt John, but he refused the offer'.

I'd say "tried to co-opt", implying that they had no more power than to try.

This definition of "co-opt" matches my experience of the use of the word
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/co-opt
co-opt
verb
[with object]
1 Appoint to membership of a committee or other body by invitation
of the existing members.
‘the committee may co-opt additional members for special
purposes’
‘Anyone who feels they have some time to spare or a particular
expertise they can still volunteer and be co-opted to fill vacant
committee positions - rising to the challenges and becoming
involved is very rewarding.’
1.1 Divert to or use in a role different from the usual or original
one.
with object and infinitive ‘social scientists were co-opted to
work with the development agencies’
1.2 Adopt (an idea or policy) for one's own use.
‘the green parties have had most of their ideas co-opted by
bigger parties’
(Selected quotations only)

As far as I am concerned "co-option" cannot occur until acceptance
is received from the person to whom membership is offered, so that
the original sentence "the committed co-opted John, but he refused
to join it" is incorrect because no co-option took place.

I see no problem with
"The committee voted/wanted/offered to co-opt John..."

Peter Duncanson [BrE]

2019-12-02 23:28:38 UTC

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by s***@my-deja.com

Is there any contradiction in the following sentence? The
committee co-opted John, but he refused to join it.

Doesn't work for me. "Co-opted" implies that they had the power to
compel him to join.

Post by charles
I'd say 'the committee offered to co-opt John, but he refused the offer'.

I'd say "tried to co-opt", implying that they had no more power than to try.

As far as I am concerned "co-option" cannot occur until acceptance
is received from the person to whom membership is offered, so that
the original sentence "the committed co-opted John, but he refused
to join it" is incorrect because no co-option took place.
I see no problem with
"The committee voted/wanted/offered to co-opt John..."

Agreed.

Back in the mists of time I was Secretary of a committee in a
university. It was the Computer User's Sub-Committee. It was a means of
communication between the academic departments and the Computer Centre
which provided central computing services for academics.

I still have annual reports that list the membership of the committee.

There were members each of whom represented one of the major academic
divisions of the university ("Faculties" in BrE). In addition there were
"co-opted members". Each co-opted member represented a department, part
of a Faculty, which made heavy use of the computer service.

During my ten years as secretary the committee never discussed
co-option. I think what had happened before my time was that the
co-option process had been a request/suggestion to certain departments
that they should each send a member to the committee. It was for the
department to choose a person and then his/her replacement, and so on,
as time went by.

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

occam

2019-12-01 10:20:20 UTC

Post by Yurui Liu
Is there any contradiction in the following sentence?
The committee co-opted John, but he refused to join it.

Doesn't work for me. "Co-opted" implies that they had the power to
compel him to join.

Post by charles
I'd say 'the committee offered to co-opt John, but he refused the offer'.

I'd say "tried to co-opt", implying that they had no more power than to try.

I looked up the difference between 'co-opted' and 'coerced'. Coerced
certainly has the implication of compelling someone to do something
against their wishes. However, only one of the four definitions of
co-opted (no. 3) has this implication of coercion.

- Choose or elect as a fellow member or colleague
- Neutralize or win over through assimilation into an established group
- Appoint summarily or commandeer (e.g. in the military)
- Take or assume for one's own use

So, it is possible (and quite normal) to co-opt someone to a position
in a committee, without forcing them to accept. The latter would be to
coerce them.

Katy Jennison

2019-12-01 11:57:37 UTC

Post by Yurui Liu
Is there any contradiction in the following sentence?
The committee co-opted John, but he refused to join it.

Doesn't work for me. "Co-opted" implies that they had the power to
compel him to join.

Post by charles
I'd say 'the committee offered to co-opt John, but he refused the offer'.

I'd say "tried to co-opt", implying that they had no more power than to try.

I looked up the difference between 'co-opted' and 'coerced'. Coerced
certainly has the implication of compelling someone to do something
against their wishes. However, only one of the four definitions of
co-opted (no. 3) has this implication of coercion.
- Choose or elect as a fellow member or colleague
- Neutralize or win over through assimilation into an established group
- Appoint summarily or commandeer (e.g. in the military)
- Take or assume for one's own use
So, it is possible (and quite normal) to co-opt someone to a position
in a committee, without forcing them to accept. The latter would be to
coerce them.

Persuasion. That's what you need, especially when (as someone mentioned
upthread) you yourself want to stand down but in order to be able to do
so you need to finger a successor.

"I say, I think I've found someone who might be prepared to take over as
Secretary if I step down in eighteen months time."

"Oh good! Who is it? Let's co-opt them now and make them Assistant
Secretary, and you can be showing them the ropes."

--
Katy Jennison

Richard Heathfield

2019-12-01 13:16:56 UTC

Post by Yurui Liu
Is there any contradiction in the following sentence?
The committee co-opted John, but he refused to join it.

Doesn't work for me. "Co-opted" implies that they had the power to
compel him to join.

Post by charles
I'd say 'the committee offered to co-opt John, but he refused the offer'.

I'd say "tried to co-opt", implying that they had no more power than to try.

I looked up the difference between 'co-opted' and 'coerced'. Coerced
certainly has the implication of compelling someone to do something
against their wishes. However, only one of the four definitions of
co-opted (no. 3) has this implication of coercion.
- Choose or elect as a fellow member or colleague
- Neutralize or win over through assimilation into an established group
- Appoint summarily or commandeer (e.g. in the military)
- Take or assume for one's own use
So, it is possible (and quite normal) to co-opt someone to a position
in a committee, without forcing them to accept. The latter would be to
coerce them.

Persuasion. That's what you need, especially when (as someone mentioned
upthread) you yourself want to stand down but in order to be able to do
so you need to finger a successor.
"I say, I think I've found someone who might be prepared to take over as
Secretary if I step down in eighteen months time."
"Oh good! Who is it? Let's co-opt them now and make them Assistant
Secretary, and you can be showing them the ropes."

The really difficult spot to fill is that of Treasurer.

There is a rather interesting algorithm for selecting a Treasurer from
amongst Committee members, that might be of use to some people here:

1) sit the Committee around a table in a locked room;
2) position a plate of (preferably dead) spiders in the middle of the
table, making sure there's *almost* enough for everybody - if there are
N people, there should be N-1 spiders;
3) until a Treasurer has been appointed, nobody may leave the room
without first either (a) eating and swallowing a spider, or (b) agreeing
to become Treasurer.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

Katy Jennison

2019-12-01 14:34:26 UTC

Post by Yurui Liu
Is there any contradiction in the following sentence?
The committee co-opted John, but he refused to join it.

Doesn't work for me. "Co-opted" implies that they had the power to
compel him to join.

Post by charles
I'd say 'the committee offered to co-opt John, but he refused the offer'.

I'd say "tried to co-opt", implying that they had no more power than to try.

I looked up the difference between 'co-opted' and 'coerced'. Coerced
certainly has the implication of compelling someone to do something
against their wishes. However, only one of the four definitions of
co-opted (no. 3) has this implication of coercion.
- Choose or elect as a fellow member or colleague
- Neutralize or win over through assimilation into an established group
- Appoint summarily or commandeer (e.g. in the military)
- Take or assume for one's own use
So, it is possible (and quite normal) to co-opt someone to a position
in a committee, without forcing them to accept. The latter would be to
coerce them.

Persuasion. That's what you need, especially when (as someone
mentioned upthread) you yourself want to stand down but in order to be
able to do so you need to finger a successor.
"I say, I think I've found someone who might be prepared to take over
as Secretary if I step down in eighteen months time."
"Oh good! Who is it? Let's co-opt them now and make them Assistant
Secretary, and you can be showing them the ropes."

The really difficult spot to fill is that of Treasurer.
There is a rather interesting algorithm for selecting a Treasurer from
1) sit the Committee around a table in a locked room;
2) position a plate of (preferably dead) spiders in the middle of the
table, making sure there's *almost* enough for everybody - if there are
N people, there should be N-1 spiders;
3) until a Treasurer has been appointed, nobody may leave the room
without first either (a) eating and swallowing a spider, or (b) agreeing
to become Treasurer.

Yes, that might work. Worth a try, anyway.

Leftpondians should note that the Rightpondian committees we're talking
about are those which run societies, clubs and other organisations of
between a couple of dozen and a few hundred members, where the sums of
money handled are laughably small and rarely offer any incentive or
indeed possibility of the Treasurer getting away with anything worth
getting away with, but do involve endlessly chasing people for their
subscriptions as well as wrestling with the labyrinthine convolutions
which most banks make a society go through in order to set up the
society's bank account, never mind the hair-tearing procedures for
changing one of the three names of officers.

I have always managed to step sharply backwards when the office of
Treasurer has been on offer.

--
Katy Jennison

charles

2019-12-01 15:05:23 UTC

Is there any contradiction in the following sentence? The
committee co-opted John, but he refused to join it.

Doesn't work for me. "Co-opted" implies that they had the power to
compel him to join.

Post by charles
I'd say 'the committee offered to co-opt John, but he refused the offer'.

I'd say "tried to co-opt", implying that they had no more power than to try.

I looked up the difference between 'co-opted' and 'coerced'. Coerced
certainly has the implication of compelling someone to do something
against their wishes. However, only one of the four definitions of
co-opted (no. 3) has this implication of coercion.
- Choose or elect as a fellow member or colleague - Neutralize or
win over through assimilation into an established group - Appoint
summarily or commandeer (e.g. in the military) - Take or assume
for one's own use
So, it is possible (and quite normal) to co-opt someone to a
position in a committee, without forcing them to accept. The latter
would be to coerce them.

Persuasion. That's what you need, especially when (as someone
mentioned upthread) you yourself want to stand down but in order to be
able to do so you need to finger a successor.
"I say, I think I've found someone who might be prepared to take over
as Secretary if I step down in eighteen months time."
"Oh good! Who is it? Let's co-opt them now and make them Assistant
Secretary, and you can be showing them the ropes."

The really difficult spot to fill is that of Treasurer.
There is a rather interesting algorithm for selecting a Treasurer from
1) sit the Committee around a table in a locked room; 2) position a
plate of (preferably dead) spiders in the middle of the table, making
sure there's *almost* enough for everybody - if there are N people,
there should be N-1 spiders; 3) until a Treasurer has been appointed,
nobody may leave the room without first either (a) eating and
swallowing a spider, or (b) agreeing to become Treasurer.

Yes, that might work. Worth a try, anyway.
Leftpondians should note that the Rightpondian committees we're talking
about are those which run societies, clubs and other organisations of
between a couple of dozen and a few hundred members, where the sums of
money handled are laughably small and rarely offer any incentive or
indeed possibility of the Treasurer getting away with anything worth
getting away with, but do involve endlessly chasing people for their
subscriptions as well as wrestling with the labyrinthine convolutions
which most banks make a society go through in order to set up the
society's bank account, never mind the hair-tearing procedures for
changing one of the three names of officers.
I have always managed to step sharply backwards when the office of
Treasurer has been on offer.

when I agreed to become Honorary Treasurer of a society, it took our bank
from September (when we first sent in the forms) to March the following
year to get me accepted by them. First, "we used the wrong form" - it was
the one on their website; second " they wouldn't acccept the signatories
requiring the change". The ones they wanted were from those who opened the
account in the 1930s. I can't remember the next reason. We changed our
bank as soon as we could.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

Katy Jennison

2019-12-01 15:43:53 UTC

Post by Richard Heathfield
The really difficult spot to fill is that of Treasurer.
There is a rather interesting algorithm for selecting a Treasurer from
1) sit the Committee around a table in a locked room; 2) position a
plate of (preferably dead) spiders in the middle of the table, making
sure there's *almost* enough for everybody - if there are N people,
there should be N-1 spiders; 3) until a Treasurer has been appointed,
nobody may leave the room without first either (a) eating and
swallowing a spider, or (b) agreeing to become Treasurer.

Yes, that might work. Worth a try, anyway.
Leftpondians should note that the Rightpondian committees we're talking
about are those which run societies, clubs and other organisations of
between a couple of dozen and a few hundred members, where the sums of
money handled are laughably small and rarely offer any incentive or
indeed possibility of the Treasurer getting away with anything worth
getting away with, but do involve endlessly chasing people for their
subscriptions as well as wrestling with the labyrinthine convolutions
which most banks make a society go through in order to set up the
society's bank account, never mind the hair-tearing procedures for
changing one of the three names of officers.
I have always managed to step sharply backwards when the office of
Treasurer has been on offer.

Ah, that's almost exactly the problem we experienced a couple of years
ago. The bank appeared to have no procedures for the circumstance that
the previous Treasurer was dead, and therefore unable to sign the form.

--
Katy Jennison

Richard Heathfield

2019-12-01 15:57:42 UTC

Yes, that might work. Worth a try, anyway.
Leftpondians should note that the Rightpondian committees we're talking
about are those which run societies, clubs and other organisations of
between a couple of dozen and a few hundred members, where the sums of
money handled are laughably small and rarely offer any incentive or
indeed possibility of the Treasurer getting away with anything worth
getting away with, but do involve endlessly chasing people for their
subscriptions as well as wrestling with the labyrinthine convolutions
which most banks make a society go through in order to set up the
society's bank account, never mind the hair-tearing procedures for
changing one of the three names of officers.
I have always managed to step sharply backwards when the office of
Treasurer has been on offer.

Usenet's moderated newsgroups seem to have the online equivalent of this
problem, hence the death (or rather, the permanent suspended animation)
of groups like alt.humor.best-of-usenet and comp.lang.c.moderated.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

charles

2019-12-01 16:04:46 UTC

Post by Richard Heathfield
The really difficult spot to fill is that of Treasurer.
There is a rather interesting algorithm for selecting a Treasurer
from amongst Committee members, that might be of use to some people
1) sit the Committee around a table in a locked room; 2) position a
plate of (preferably dead) spiders in the middle of the table, making
sure there's *almost* enough for everybody - if there are N people,
there should be N-1 spiders; 3) until a Treasurer has been appointed,
nobody may leave the room without first either (a) eating and
swallowing a spider, or (b) agreeing to become Treasurer.

Yes, that might work. Worth a try, anyway.
Leftpondians should note that the Rightpondian committees we're
talking about are those which run societies, clubs and other
organisations of between a couple of dozen and a few hundred members,
where the sums of money handled are laughably small and rarely offer
any incentive or indeed possibility of the Treasurer getting away with
anything worth getting away with, but do involve endlessly chasing
people for their subscriptions as well as wrestling with the
labyrinthine convolutions which most banks make a society go through
in order to set up the society's bank account, never mind the
hair-tearing procedures for changing one of the three names of
officers.
I have always managed to step sharply backwards when the office of
Treasurer has been on offer.

when I agreed to become Honorary Treasurer of a society, it took our
bank from September (when we first sent in the forms) to March the
following year to get me accepted by them. First, "we used the wrong
form" - it was the one on their website; second " they wouldn't acccept
the signatories requiring the change". The ones they wanted were from
those who opened the account in the 1930s. I can't remember the next
reason. We changed our bank as soon as we could.

met that at the local public library. Someone with a club ticket wanted to
change the name of the holder. "The person who is named has to come in to
tranfer the ticket." "But he died last week" "The person who is named has
to come in to tranfer the ticket."
I left without discovering the resolution of the problem.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

Jerry Friedman

2019-12-01 20:07:51 UTC

On 12/1/19 9:04 AM, charles wrote:
...

Post by Katy Jennison
Ah, that's almost exactly the problem we experienced a couple of years
ago. The bank appeared to have no procedures for the circumstance that
the previous Treasurer was dead, and therefore unable to sign the form.

More Pondiality. Is your ticket our (library) card--the little plastic
rectangle that's required for borrowing books from the library?

--
Jerry Friedman

charles

2019-12-01 20:19:05 UTC

On 12/1/19 9:04 AM, charles wrote: ...

Post by Katy Jennison
Ah, that's almost exactly the problem we experienced a couple of years
ago. The bank appeared to have no procedures for the circumstance
that the previous Treasurer was dead, and therefore unable to sign the
form.

met that at the local public library. Someone with a club ticket wanted
to change the name of the holder. "The person who is named has to come
in to tranfer the ticket." "But he died last week" "The person who is
named has to come in to tranfer the ticket." I left without discovering
the resolution of the problem.

More Pondiality. Is your ticket our (library) card--the little plastic
rectangle that's required for borrowing books from the library?

No, just a few years ago. My current library card is a little bit of
plastic (credit card size). We had card ones in the past.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

Jerry Friedman

2019-12-01 22:07:53 UTC

On 12/1/19 9:04 AM, charles wrote: ...

Post by Katy Jennison
Ah, that's almost exactly the problem we experienced a couple of years
ago. The bank appeared to have no procedures for the circumstance
that the previous Treasurer was dead, and therefore unable to sign the
form.

met that at the local public library. Someone with a club ticket wanted
to change the name of the holder. "The person who is named has to come
in to tranfer the ticket." "But he died last week" "The person who is
named has to come in to tranfer the ticket." I left without discovering
the resolution of the problem.

More Pondiality. Is your ticket our (library) card--the little plastic
rectangle that's required for borrowing books from the library?

No, just a few years ago. My current library card is a little bit of
plastic (credit card size). We had card ones in the past.

Sounds as if your library cards were just like ours. But what ticket
were you talking about?

--
Jerry Friedman

charles

2019-12-01 22:41:43 UTC

On 12/1/19 9:04 AM, charles wrote: ...

Post by Katy Jennison
Ah, that's almost exactly the problem we experienced a couple of
years ago. The bank appeared to have no procedures for the
circumstance that the previous Treasurer was dead, and therefore
unable to sign the form.

met that at the local public library. Someone with a club ticket
wanted to change the name of the holder. "The person who is named has
to come in to tranfer the ticket." "But he died last week" "The
person who is named has to come in to tranfer the ticket." I left
without discovering the resolution of the problem.

More Pondiality. Is your ticket our (library) card--the little
plastic rectangle that's required for borrowing books from the library?

No, just a few years ago. My current library card is a little bit of
plastic (credit card size). We had card ones in the past.

Sounds as if your library cards were just like ours. But what ticket
were you talking about?

this was a special "card" which could be use by clubs to borrow sets of
books (scripts) or musical scores. It was (perhaps still is) known as a
'club ticket'.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

Jerry Friedman

2019-12-02 00:07:55 UTC

On 12/1/19 9:04 AM, charles wrote: ...

Post by Katy Jennison
Ah, that's almost exactly the problem we experienced a couple of
years ago. The bank appeared to have no procedures for the
circumstance that the previous Treasurer was dead, and therefore
unable to sign the form.

met that at the local public library. Someone with a club ticket
wanted to change the name of the holder. "The person who is named has
to come in to tranfer the ticket." "But he died last week" "The
person who is named has to come in to tranfer the ticket." I left
without discovering the resolution of the problem.

More Pondiality. Is your ticket our (library) card--the little
plastic rectangle that's required for borrowing books from the library?

No, just a few years ago. My current library card is a little bit of
plastic (credit card size). We had card ones in the past.

Sounds as if your library cards were

and are

Post by Jerry Friedman
just like ours. But what ticket were you talking about?

this was a special "card" which could be use by clubs to borrow sets of
books (scripts) or musical scores. It was (perhaps still is) known as a
'club ticket'.

Thanks. I haven't heard of that here, but then I've never belonged to a
club that needed to do that.

--
Jerry Friedman

Peter T. Daniels

2019-12-02 14:53:29 UTC

On 12/1/19 9:04 AM, charles wrote: ...

Post by Katy Jennison
Ah, that's almost exactly the problem we experienced a couple of
years ago. The bank appeared to have no procedures for the
circumstance that the previous Treasurer was dead, and therefore
unable to sign the form.

met that at the local public library. Someone with a club ticket
wanted to change the name of the holder. "The person who is named has
to come in to tranfer the ticket." "But he died last week" "The
person who is named has to come in to tranfer the ticket." I left
without discovering the resolution of the problem.

More Pondiality. Is your ticket our (library) card--the little
plastic rectangle that's required for borrowing books from the library?

No, just a few years ago. My current library card is a little bit of
plastic (credit card size). We had card ones in the past.

Sounds as if your library cards were

and are

Post by Jerry Friedman
just like ours. But what ticket were you talking about?

this was a special "card" which could be use by clubs to borrow sets of
books (scripts) or musical scores. It was (perhaps still is) known as a
'club ticket'.

Thanks. I haven't heard of that here, but then I've never belonged to a
club that needed to do that.

Published score-and-parts sets of chamber music are circulated by the
Library and Museum of the Performing Arts at Lincoln Center, one of the
specialized collections of the New York Public Library, just like any
other book. When they are returned, they are checked to be sure all parts
have been returned.

This doesn't include orchestral scores, even those long out of copyright
like Beethoven symphonies; such sets of parts normally belong to orchestra
libraries. Conductors' scores (very large) are generally not held by
circulating libraries.

Peter T. Daniels

2019-12-01 16:59:27 UTC

Post by charles
when I agreed to become Honorary Treasurer of a society, it took our bank
from September (when we first sent in the forms) to March the following
year to get me accepted by them. First, "we used the wrong form" - it was
the one on their website; second " they wouldn't acccept the signatories
requiring the change". The ones they wanted were from those who opened the
account in the 1930s. I can't remember the next reason. We changed our
bank as soon as we could.

Over Here, "Honorary" is a courtesy title, and an Honorary Treasurer
wouldn't actually keep books or deal with the bank. Where was the
actual treasurer? (Nor would "treasurer" be the sort of office one
would be honored with anyway.)

not Honourary?

charles

2019-12-01 17:35:25 UTC

Post by charles
when I agreed to become Honorary Treasurer of a society, it took our
bank from September (when we first sent in the forms) to March the
following year to get me accepted by them. First, "we used the wrong
form" - it was the one on their website; second " they wouldn't acccept
the signatories requiring the change". The ones they wanted were from
those who opened the account in the 1930s. I can't remember the next
reason. We changed our bank as soon as we could.

Over Here, "Honorary" is a courtesy title, and an Honorary Treasurer
wouldn't actually keep books or deal with the bank. Where was the actual
treasurer? (Nor would "treasurer" be the sort of office one would be
honored with anyway.)
not Honourary?

here it means he/she performs the role without pay.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

Jerry Friedman

2019-12-01 19:16:03 UTC

Post by charles
when I agreed to become Honorary Treasurer of a society, it took our
bank from September (when we first sent in the forms) to March the
following year to get me accepted by them. First, "we used the wrong
form" - it was the one on their website; second " they wouldn't acccept
the signatories requiring the change". The ones they wanted were from
those who opened the account in the 1930s. I can't remember the next
reason. We changed our bank as soon as we could.

Over Here, "Honorary" is a courtesy title, and an Honorary Treasurer
wouldn't actually keep books or deal with the bank. Where was the actual
treasurer? (Nor would "treasurer" be the sort of office one would be
honored with anyway.)
not Honourary?

here it means he/she performs the role without pay.

There's one I wouldn't have guessed!

--
Jerry Friedman

Athel Cornish-Bowden

2019-12-01 19:54:13 UTC

Post by charles
when I agreed to become Honorary Treasurer of a society, it took our
bank from September (when we first sent in the forms) to March the
following year to get me accepted by them. First, "we used the wrong
form" - it was the one on their website; second " they wouldn't acccept
the signatories requiring the change". The ones they wanted were from
those who opened the account in the 1930s. I can't remember the next
reason. We changed our bank as soon as we could.

Over Here, "Honorary" is a courtesy title, and an Honorary Treasurer
wouldn't actually keep books or deal with the bank. Where was the actual
treasurer? (Nor would "treasurer" be the sort of office one would be
honored with anyway.)
not Honourary?

No. Have you become German, expecting English to be logical?

Post by charles
here it means he/she performs the role without pay.

--
athel

Peter T. Daniels

2019-12-01 20:48:32 UTC

Post by charles
when I agreed to become Honorary Treasurer of a society, it took our
bank from September (when we first sent in the forms) to March the
following year to get me accepted by them. First, "we used the wrong
form" - it was the one on their website; second " they wouldn't acccept
the signatories requiring the change". The ones they wanted were from
those who opened the account in the 1930s. I can't remember the next
reason. We changed our bank as soon as we could.

Over Here, "Honorary" is a courtesy title, and an Honorary Treasurer
wouldn't actually keep books or deal with the bank. Where was the actual
treasurer? (Nor would "treasurer" be the sort of office one would be
honored with anyway.)
not Honourary?

No. Have you become German, expecting English to be logical?

consistent (like AmE), which doesn't equate to logical.

Post by charles
here it means he/she performs the role without pay.

"Glamour" was supposed to be the only AmE word that didn't lose that u,
but recently I've been seeing "glamor."

Tony Cooper

2019-12-01 22:08:12 UTC

On Sun, 1 Dec 2019 14:34:26 +0000, Katy Jennison