# Is "previous predecessor" grammatically incorrect? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 23, 2015, 12:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-previous-predecessor-grammatically-incorrect/713406 "2015-02-23T12:07:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![yabob](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yabob/32/2821_2.png) [@yabob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yabob)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2015, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-previous-predecessor-grammatically-incorrect/713406/21 "2015-02-23T19:45:16Z")
So say “penultimate predecessor” … ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2015, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-previous-predecessor-grammatically-incorrect/713406/22 "2015-02-23T19:56:01Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > It’s the same word, just in singular and plural forms. Usage considers that a non-difference. “OPEC country” means something different than “OPEC.” But “ATM machine” is exactly congruent with “ATM.” ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2015, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-previous-predecessor-grammatically-incorrect/713406/23 "2015-02-23T22:17:50Z")
> [@Gary\_T](#): > > Redunancy doesn’t run the risk of changing the meaning. While double negatives are generally used for emphasis, they technically reverse the meaning. “I don’t have no bananas” could mean “I have bananas” (e.g. “I’m not sure how many bananas I have, but I know I don’t have no [i.e. zero] bananas.”). They are potentially ambivalent or confusing. Double negatives in no way reverse the meaning in the kinds of constructions English peevers usually rail against, which are universally the intensified form of the negative in Black and poor White varieties of English. No intelligent speaker thinks “ain’t got none” implies the speaker does have some. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2015, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-previous-predecessor-grammatically-incorrect/713406/24 "2015-02-23T22:37:10Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > “OPEC country” means something different than “OPEC.” But “ATM machine” is exactly congruent with “ATM.” OK. But I don’t understand what point you’re making. The language is stuffed with these “redundancies.” PIN number. DC current. HIV virus. They all work in the same way and developed in the same fashion. All are in common use. They are all correct for every possible usage except the most formal writing. What are you trying to say about them? ---
**Author:** ![Isilder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/cc9497/32.png) [@Isilder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isilder)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2015, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-previous-predecessor-grammatically-incorrect/713406/25 "2015-02-23T23:24:40Z")
> [@Claverhouse](#): > > It is correct because there may be more than one predecessor. The one immediately anterior to oneself would be the most obvious person referred to. There is an ambiguity. Perhaps “the next most previous predecessor” to be clear that its talking about order AND someone different. ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2015, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-previous-predecessor-grammatically-incorrect/713406/26 "2015-02-23T23:36:22Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > Double negatives in no way reverse the meaning in the kinds of constructions English peevers usually rail against, which are universally the intensified form of the negative in Black and poor White varieties of English. No intelligent speaker thinks “ain’t got none” implies the speaker does have some. The idea that a double negative just becomes a positive arose from the strange notion that natural language, to-wit English, should be “logical”. In formal logic and algebra, a consecutive negatives do indeed cancel each other out. I learned the rule (as applied to English grammar), and its supposed rationale, in 8th grade, circa 1964. (One might suppose that English teachers of the time were watching too much Star Trek, except that this was before Star Trek.) So why shouldn’t the same rule apply in all other languages, e.g., French? There, as I learned in 9th grade beginning French, a double negative is perfectly standard idiom. ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2015, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-previous-predecessor-grammatically-incorrect/713406/27 "2015-02-23T23:37:54Z")
BTW, the distinction between “grammatically correct” and “semantically meaningful” is made clear by the rather famous, and perfectly grammatical, textbook example: Colorless green ideas sleep furiously. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2015, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-previous-predecessor-grammatically-incorrect/713406/28 "2015-02-24T01:05:25Z")
> [@Senegoid](#): > > The idea that a double negative just becomes a positive arose from the strange notion that natural language, to-wit English, should be “logical”. In formal logic and algebra, a consecutive negatives do indeed cancel each other out. I learned the rule (as applied to English grammar), and its supposed rationale, in 8th grade, circa 1964. (One might suppose that English teachers of the time were watching too much Star Trek, except that this was before Star Trek.) > > So why shouldn’t the same rule apply in all other languages, e.g., French? There, as I learned in 9th grade beginning French, a double negative is perfectly standard idiom. Frankly, I don’t think it’s Star Trek so much as simple class warfare (which isn’t called class warfare when it’s the rich putting down the poor, another linguistic oddity), in that the double negative is perfectly standard in the kinds of English usually associated with the poor as opposed to the middle class, such that the middle class could differentiate themselves by speaking “better”, as in “not like the poor”, and denigrate the lower-class language as illogical and ignorant in the process. If logic were the arbiter of language, why is it “eleven” and not “one-teen” and “twelve” and not “two-teen”? Or, better, “onety, onety-one, onety-two, onety-three” etc. as opposed to special-casing one group of two-digit numbers. You can argue against that, but, logically, it follows the pattern established by literally every other grouping of two-digit numbers a lot better. (And, once again, French does number-naming a lot more illogically!) And if it’s about improving the language, why not make a more substantive improvement by borrowing the [aspect-marking features of AAVE](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American_Vernacular_English), such as the difference between “He stay working.” and “He steady working.” It’s possible to express those concepts in Standard English, but they’re shorter in AAVE, and isn’t concision an absolute virtue, as per Strunk and/or White? ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2015, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-previous-predecessor-grammatically-incorrect/713406/29 "2015-02-24T19:41:33Z")
> [@Kamino\_Neko](#): > > It’s grammatically fine. > > Whether it actually passes on the intended meaning is a different question (personally, I would read it as ‘predecessor’s predecessor’ - Clinton relative to Obama for an immediately graspable example - though I have no idea if that’s what it’s intended to mean), but the _grammar_ is fine. +1 > [@yabob](#): > > So say “penultimate predecessor” … Damn, you beat me to it! But only for one interpretation, of course. > [@Senegoid](#): > > BTW, the distinction between “grammatically correct” and “semantically meaningful” is made clear by the rather famous, and perfectly grammatical, textbook example: > Colorless green ideas sleep furiously. Exactly. Gramatically, “previous predecessor” is an adjective modifying a noun, which is perfectly acceptable grammar. Whether it conveys the intended meaning is another matter. If it’s referring to the predecessor, it’s at worst semantically incorrect and at best ambiguously redundant. If it’s referring to the predecessor before the most recent predecessor, well, it’s still ambiguous, since all previous holders are predecessors, not just the last one. If we’re discussing a number of predecessors, identifying a particular one, and are now referring to the one just prior, then it’s perfectly appropriate. It’s the kind of term I wouldn’t double-take reading in code comments, for example, where that kind of thing often comes up. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2015, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-previous-predecessor-grammatically-incorrect/713406/30 "2015-02-24T19:59:39Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > OK. But I don’t understand what point you’re making. The language is stuffed with these “redundancies.” PIN number. DC current. HIV virus. They all work in the same way and developed in the same fashion. All are in common use. They are all correct for every possible usage except the most formal writing. What are you trying to say about them? You cited “OPEC country” as an example of this grammatical but formally-incorrect redundancy. I just pointed out that it wasn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2015, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-previous-predecessor-grammatically-incorrect/713406/31 "2015-02-24T20:01:59Z")
> [@yabob](#): > > So say “penultimate predecessor” … No good. Consider, who is Barack Obama’s _ultimate_ predecessor as President? ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2015, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-previous-predecessor-grammatically-incorrect/713406/32 "2015-02-24T23:00:03Z")
> [@Gary\_T](#): > > Redunancy doesn’t run the risk of changing the meaning. While double negatives are generally used for emphasis, they technically reverse the meaning. “I don’t have no bananas” could mean “I have bananas” (e.g. “I’m not sure how many bananas I have, but I know I don’t have no [i.e. zero] bananas.”). They are potentially ambivalent or confusing. Untrue. “No, never” does not mean “yes” and no one would think it meant it was a sign of agreement. Even “I an’t got no bananas” would never be interpreted to mean “I have bananas.” Language is not mathematics. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2015, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-previous-predecessor-grammatically-incorrect/713406/33 "2015-02-24T23:17:40Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > You cited “OPEC country” as an example of this grammatical but formally-incorrect redundancy. I just pointed out that it wasn’t. OPEC is Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. Country/Countries. As I said earlier, usage does not care about plurals. It is the same word. ---
**Author:** ![JimSC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/3d9bf3/32.png) [@JimSC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JimSC)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2015, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-previous-predecessor-grammatically-incorrect/713406/34 "2015-02-25T00:29:01Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > OPEC is Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. Country/Countries. As I said earlier, usage does not care about plurals. It is the same word. “Is Polystan an OPEC country or a non-OPEC country?” “Is Polystan an OPEC or a non-OPEC?” Are these interchangible? ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2015, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-previous-predecessor-grammatically-incorrect/713406/35 "2015-02-25T01:35:21Z")
> [@JimSC](#): > > “Is Polystan an OPEC country or a non-OPEC country?” > > “Is Polystan an OPEC or a non-OPEC?” > > Are these interchangible? Why should they have to be? Interchangeable is misspelled. This is as irrelevant as your question, but funnier. ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2015, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-previous-predecessor-grammatically-incorrect/713406/36 "2015-02-25T02:22:56Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > No good. Consider, who is Barack Obama’s _ultimate_ predecessor as President? That guy George. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2015, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-previous-predecessor-grammatically-incorrect/713406/37 "2015-02-25T03:32:39Z")
> [@Senegoid](#): > > That guy George. Nice. ---
**Author:** ![JimSC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/3d9bf3/32.png) [@JimSC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JimSC)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2015, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-previous-predecessor-grammatically-incorrect/713406/38 "2015-02-25T03:38:39Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > “OPEC country” means something different than “OPEC.” But “ATM machine” is exactly congruent with “ATM.” > [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > OK. But I don’t understand what point you’re making. The language is stuffed with these “redundancies.” PIN number. DC current. HIV virus. They all work in the same way and developed in the same fashion. All are in common use. They are all correct for every possible usage except the most formal writing. What are you trying to say about them? > [@JimSC](#): > > “Is Polystan an OPEC country or a non-OPEC country?” > > “Is Polystan an OPEC or a non-OPEC?” > > Are these interchangible? > [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Why should they have to be? **Redundancy: the act of using a word, phrase, etc., that repeats something else and is therefore unnecessary.** If the word “country” is redundant, as you claim, then its inclusion is unnecessary, its omission does not change the meaning of the phrase, and the two questions are interchangeable. Therefore, the word cannot be redundant unless the two questions are interchangeable, which they are not. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2015, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-previous-predecessor-grammatically-incorrect/713406/39 "2015-02-25T06:36:47Z")
And just to be complete, there’s another interpretation of ‘previous predecessor’: Say you have a sequence ABC, such that C’s predecessor is B. Then you modify it to be AFC. C’s new predecessor is F. C’s previous predecessor is B. That’s the interpretation I came up with when I first read the thread title, anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2015, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-previous-predecessor-grammatically-incorrect/713406/40 "2015-02-25T23:00:09Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > And just to be complete, there’s another interpretation of ‘previous predecessor’: > > Say you have a sequence ABC, such that C’s predecessor is B. > > Then you modify it to be AFC. C’s new predecessor is F. C’s previous predecessor is B. > > That’s the interpretation I came up with when I first read the thread title, anyway. 🙂 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-previous-predecessor-grammatically-incorrect/713406.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-previous-predecessor-grammatically-incorrect/713406.md?page=3)