Bequest vs. bequeath
Feb. 20th, 2008 08:33 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jmc_bksI hate it when an author uses the wrong word. A while back I read a suspense novel in which the author described exsanguination as the cause of death but kept calling it evisceration. Both pentasyllabic words starting with the letter "e", both describing a fairly horrific and surely painful way to die. But not the same thing. And I don't think it was the author having the narrator make an error as part of her character. The word was just used incorrectly.
Today's language pet peeve? Specifically bequested. Here's the thing: "specific bequest" is a noun meaning that in a will, the testator left a particular item to a particular individual, specifying its disposition; it is distinct from the residuary or bulk disposition. As in, I leave my collection of Barbie Dolls (TM) to my favorite niece, all other tangible personal property to be divided among my children, if they survive me, in as nearly equal shares as is practical given the nature of the property.
The verb for this? Bequeath. A specific bequest is not specifically bequested. It is bequeathed specifically.
And that is all I have to say on the matter.
Okay, maybe it's just me being overly touchy because I've written many, many wills and trusts. It just jumped off the page at me.
Today's language pet peeve? Specifically bequested. Here's the thing: "specific bequest" is a noun meaning that in a will, the testator left a particular item to a particular individual, specifying its disposition; it is distinct from the residuary or bulk disposition. As in, I leave my collection of Barbie Dolls (TM) to my favorite niece, all other tangible personal property to be divided among my children, if they survive me, in as nearly equal shares as is practical given the nature of the property.
The verb for this? Bequeath. A specific bequest is not specifically bequested. It is bequeathed specifically.
And that is all I have to say on the matter.
Okay, maybe it's just me being overly touchy because I've written many, many wills and trusts. It just jumped off the page at me.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-02-20 01:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-20 02:50 pm (UTC)In the same book as the specifically bequested, the narrator talked about a sexual deviate. I thought it should be sexual deviant, but apparently deviate is used as a noun and a verb. Still, it bothered me.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-21 01:20 pm (UTC)Um, no. It's OUTED. One T, dammit.
The only good thing, if you can call it a good thing, is it was consistently wrong throughout the book. But nah, I can't call that a good thing.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-21 01:30 pm (UTC)Consistency is important :) At work, we're building a new database for case tracking. (Yay! Not.) The project lead on the programming side is British. Scattered through the screens, judgment is spelled using BrE and AmE, sometimes both ways on the same page. It's driving me crazy. Pick one! (I'd prefer AmE, but either one, just be consistent.)
no subject
Date: 2008-02-20 03:43 pm (UTC)The funniest thing was when Simon Brett, reading his own stuff said facetious wrong. Huh? He's an actor! He's smart! he should know it is NOT "fACE-shuss" Don't tell me that's the British way of saying it. They do Renaissance funky, okay. Schedule, sure. But it's fah CEE shuss. Dammit. Um, isn't it? Any brits around to confirm this?
kate r
no subject
Date: 2008-02-20 05:02 pm (UTC)Healthy recipes for weight loss
Date: 2011-06-19 06:33 pm (UTC)My website is on [url=http://healthyrecipeforweightloss.blogspot.com]Weight loss recipes[/url].
Stock investment
Date: 2011-07-09 08:43 pm (UTC)My website is on [url=http://goodstockstoinvestin.blogspot.com]Stock quote[/url]