Correct use of the word 'extant'
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
Consider the following sentence:
"Is there anything you could say which would still be extant in 24 hours time?"
Does it make sense to use the word 'extant' to mean that some proposition would still be true at some time rather than that some object is still in existence?
Cheers folks.
usage
asked Sep 18 at 7:33
C. Macarlino
1
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 2 days ago
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
Consider the following sentence:
"Is there anything you could say which would still be extant in 24 hours time?"
Does it make sense to use the word 'extant' to mean that some proposition would still be true at some time rather than that some object is still in existence?
Cheers folks.
usage
asked Sep 18 at 7:33
C. Macarlino
1
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 2 days ago
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
1
Could you update the question after checking the word in a good dictionary for its definition and usage?
– Kris
Sep 18 at 9:31
1
Very relevant: What is the appropriate usage of 'extant'?
– tmgr
Oct 18 at 13:18
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
Consider the following sentence:
"Is there anything you could say which would still be extant in 24 hours time?"
Does it make sense to use the word 'extant' to mean that some proposition would still be true at some time rather than that some object is still in existence?
Cheers folks.
usage
asked Sep 18 at 7:33
C. Macarlino
1
Consider the following sentence:
"Is there anything you could say which would still be extant in 24 hours time?"
Does it make sense to use the word 'extant' to mean that some proposition would still be true at some time rather than that some object is still in existence?
Cheers folks.
usage
usage
asked Sep 18 at 7:33
C. Macarlino
1
asked Sep 18 at 7:33
C. Macarlino
1
asked Sep 18 at 7:33
C. Macarlino
1
asked Sep 18 at 7:33
C. Macarlino
1
asked Sep 18 at 7:33
C. Macarlino
1
1
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 2 days ago
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 2 days ago
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
1
Could you update the question after checking the word in a good dictionary for its definition and usage?
– Kris
Sep 18 at 9:31
1
Very relevant: What is the appropriate usage of 'extant'?
– tmgr
Oct 18 at 13:18
add a comment |
1
Could you update the question after checking the word in a good dictionary for its definition and usage?
– Kris
Sep 18 at 9:31
1
Very relevant: What is the appropriate usage of 'extant'?
– tmgr
Oct 18 at 13:18
1
1
Could you update the question after checking the word in a good dictionary for its definition and usage?
– Kris
Sep 18 at 9:31
Could you update the question after checking the word in a good dictionary for its definition and usage?
– Kris
Sep 18 at 9:31
1
1
Very relevant: What is the appropriate usage of 'extant'?
– tmgr
Oct 18 at 13:18
Very relevant: What is the appropriate usage of 'extant'?
– tmgr
Oct 18 at 13:18
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
-1
down vote
Extant is quite different from existent.
It is derived from the Latin exstat, meaning literally it stands out. It is a term of scholarly. It related to documents and. writings that are no longer available even though they are known to have existed. So many of the volumes of the History of the Roman historian Livy are no longer extant (except in fragments quoted by others or in Reader’s Digest style ‘epitomes’.). The writings of the Greek Atomist, Democritus and other pre-socratic cosmologists are lost (apart from isolated citations) because they clashed with early Christian dogma. These are known works, such as a great work by The Alexandrian Theophrastus on the early Greek philosophers, which are no longer extant. But archaeologists keep discovering papyrus fragments, such as a complete comedy by Menander, found in an ancient landfill site outside ancient Oxyrrinchus in the desert towards the Nile delta. Others may be found. So they may be among the known works of literature, history, religion or whatever, so it is not quite right to say they do not exist. So we say they are no longer extant.
answered Sep 18 at 7:55
Tuffy
3,0191617
1
Macmillan has a nice straightforward definition: "still existing, usually despite being very old." You're right that it's usually applied to books and documents but it's also used with buildings or works of art, for instance, and other suitably old things that have managed to persist.
– tmgr
Sep 18 at 10:54
@tmgr Yes, although I think it would be odd to say of (say) the former Royal Palace of Westminster that it is ‘no longer extant.’. From the examples in the online Oxford dictionary, it appears that the core idea is ‘continued availability for study’. At the edges it can find itself used just to mean ‘no longer existing’
– Tuffy
Sep 18 at 17:09
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
-1
down vote
Extant is quite different from existent.
It is derived from the Latin exstat, meaning literally it stands out. It is a term of scholarly. It related to documents and. writings that are no longer available even though they are known to have existed. So many of the volumes of the History of the Roman historian Livy are no longer extant (except in fragments quoted by others or in Reader’s Digest style ‘epitomes’.). The writings of the Greek Atomist, Democritus and other pre-socratic cosmologists are lost (apart from isolated citations) because they clashed with early Christian dogma. These are known works, such as a great work by The Alexandrian Theophrastus on the early Greek philosophers, which are no longer extant. But archaeologists keep discovering papyrus fragments, such as a complete comedy by Menander, found in an ancient landfill site outside ancient Oxyrrinchus in the desert towards the Nile delta. Others may be found. So they may be among the known works of literature, history, religion or whatever, so it is not quite right to say they do not exist. So we say they are no longer extant.
answered Sep 18 at 7:55
Tuffy
3,0191617
1
Macmillan has a nice straightforward definition: "still existing, usually despite being very old." You're right that it's usually applied to books and documents but it's also used with buildings or works of art, for instance, and other suitably old things that have managed to persist.
– tmgr
Sep 18 at 10:54
@tmgr Yes, although I think it would be odd to say of (say) the former Royal Palace of Westminster that it is ‘no longer extant.’. From the examples in the online Oxford dictionary, it appears that the core idea is ‘continued availability for study’. At the edges it can find itself used just to mean ‘no longer existing’
– Tuffy
Sep 18 at 17:09
add a comment |
up vote
-1
down vote
Extant is quite different from existent.
It is derived from the Latin exstat, meaning literally it stands out. It is a term of scholarly. It related to documents and. writings that are no longer available even though they are known to have existed. So many of the volumes of the History of the Roman historian Livy are no longer extant (except in fragments quoted by others or in Reader’s Digest style ‘epitomes’.). The writings of the Greek Atomist, Democritus and other pre-socratic cosmologists are lost (apart from isolated citations) because they clashed with early Christian dogma. These are known works, such as a great work by The Alexandrian Theophrastus on the early Greek philosophers, which are no longer extant. But archaeologists keep discovering papyrus fragments, such as a complete comedy by Menander, found in an ancient landfill site outside ancient Oxyrrinchus in the desert towards the Nile delta. Others may be found. So they may be among the known works of literature, history, religion or whatever, so it is not quite right to say they do not exist. So we say they are no longer extant.
answered Sep 18 at 7:55
Tuffy
3,0191617
1
Macmillan has a nice straightforward definition: "still existing, usually despite being very old." You're right that it's usually applied to books and documents but it's also used with buildings or works of art, for instance, and other suitably old things that have managed to persist.
– tmgr
Sep 18 at 10:54
@tmgr Yes, although I think it would be odd to say of (say) the former Royal Palace of Westminster that it is ‘no longer extant.’. From the examples in the online Oxford dictionary, it appears that the core idea is ‘continued availability for study’. At the edges it can find itself used just to mean ‘no longer existing’
– Tuffy
Sep 18 at 17:09
add a comment |
up vote
-1
down vote
up vote
-1
down vote
Extant is quite different from existent.
It is derived from the Latin exstat, meaning literally it stands out. It is a term of scholarly. It related to documents and. writings that are no longer available even though they are known to have existed. So many of the volumes of the History of the Roman historian Livy are no longer extant (except in fragments quoted by others or in Reader’s Digest style ‘epitomes’.). The writings of the Greek Atomist, Democritus and other pre-socratic cosmologists are lost (apart from isolated citations) because they clashed with early Christian dogma. These are known works, such as a great work by The Alexandrian Theophrastus on the early Greek philosophers, which are no longer extant. But archaeologists keep discovering papyrus fragments, such as a complete comedy by Menander, found in an ancient landfill site outside ancient Oxyrrinchus in the desert towards the Nile delta. Others may be found. So they may be among the known works of literature, history, religion or whatever, so it is not quite right to say they do not exist. So we say they are no longer extant.
answered Sep 18 at 7:55
Tuffy
3,0191617
Extant is quite different from existent.
It is derived from the Latin exstat, meaning literally it stands out. It is a term of scholarly. It related to documents and. writings that are no longer available even though they are known to have existed. So many of the volumes of the History of the Roman historian Livy are no longer extant (except in fragments quoted by others or in Reader’s Digest style ‘epitomes’.). The writings of the Greek Atomist, Democritus and other pre-socratic cosmologists are lost (apart from isolated citations) because they clashed with early Christian dogma. These are known works, such as a great work by The Alexandrian Theophrastus on the early Greek philosophers, which are no longer extant. But archaeologists keep discovering papyrus fragments, such as a complete comedy by Menander, found in an ancient landfill site outside ancient Oxyrrinchus in the desert towards the Nile delta. Others may be found. So they may be among the known works of literature, history, religion or whatever, so it is not quite right to say they do not exist. So we say they are no longer extant.
answered Sep 18 at 7:55
Tuffy
3,0191617
answered Sep 18 at 7:55
Tuffy
3,0191617
answered Sep 18 at 7:55
Tuffy
3,0191617
answered Sep 18 at 7:55
Tuffy
3,0191617
3,0191617
1
Macmillan has a nice straightforward definition: "still existing, usually despite being very old." You're right that it's usually applied to books and documents but it's also used with buildings or works of art, for instance, and other suitably old things that have managed to persist.
– tmgr
Sep 18 at 10:54
@tmgr Yes, although I think it would be odd to say of (say) the former Royal Palace of Westminster that it is ‘no longer extant.’. From the examples in the online Oxford dictionary, it appears that the core idea is ‘continued availability for study’. At the edges it can find itself used just to mean ‘no longer existing’
– Tuffy
Sep 18 at 17:09
add a comment |
1
Macmillan has a nice straightforward definition: "still existing, usually despite being very old." You're right that it's usually applied to books and documents but it's also used with buildings or works of art, for instance, and other suitably old things that have managed to persist.
– tmgr
Sep 18 at 10:54
@tmgr Yes, although I think it would be odd to say of (say) the former Royal Palace of Westminster that it is ‘no longer extant.’. From the examples in the online Oxford dictionary, it appears that the core idea is ‘continued availability for study’. At the edges it can find itself used just to mean ‘no longer existing’
– Tuffy
Sep 18 at 17:09
1
1
Macmillan has a nice straightforward definition: "still existing, usually despite being very old." You're right that it's usually applied to books and documents but it's also used with buildings or works of art, for instance, and other suitably old things that have managed to persist.
– tmgr
Sep 18 at 10:54
Macmillan has a nice straightforward definition: "still existing, usually despite being very old." You're right that it's usually applied to books and documents but it's also used with buildings or works of art, for instance, and other suitably old things that have managed to persist.
– tmgr
Sep 18 at 10:54
@tmgr Yes, although I think it would be odd to say of (say) the former Royal Palace of Westminster that it is ‘no longer extant.’. From the examples in the online Oxford dictionary, it appears that the core idea is ‘continued availability for study’. At the edges it can find itself used just to mean ‘no longer existing’
– Tuffy
Sep 18 at 17:09
@tmgr Yes, although I think it would be odd to say of (say) the former Royal Palace of Westminster that it is ‘no longer extant.’. From the examples in the online Oxford dictionary, it appears that the core idea is ‘continued availability for study’. At the edges it can find itself used just to mean ‘no longer existing’
– Tuffy
Sep 18 at 17:09
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f464748%2fcorrect-use-of-the-word-extant%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
Could you update the question after checking the word in a good dictionary for its definition and usage?
– Kris
Sep 18 at 9:31
1
Very relevant: What is the appropriate usage of 'extant'?
– tmgr
Oct 18 at 13:18