Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Coequal

  • 08-11-2011 09:52AM
    #1
    Cianos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,850 ✭✭✭


    Is there any use for this word, where 'equal' won't do? The dictionary defines it as ;
    co·e·qual   [koh-ee-kwuhl] Show IPA
    adjective
    1.
    equal with another or each other in rank, ability, extent, etc.: The two top students were coequal.

    noun
    2.
    a coequal person or thing.

    Both can just be facilitated by 'equal'. Is it just superfluous or are there actually any uses where it's better?


Comments

  • #2
    pickarooney
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 36,275 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    Maybe it's applicable where the candidates score identically in all areas as opposed to being globally equal. For example if you were ranking two footballers, A and B:


    A B
    Heading 7 7
    Tackling 8 8
    Shooting 6 6

    would be coequal whereas


    A B
    Heading 7 8
    Tackling 8 5
    Shooting 6 8


    would be 'just' equal?

    I've never heard the word coequal before so it's a complete guess.


  • #3
    Cianos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,850 ✭✭✭Cianos


    I was thinking it could be a better choice for describing the association of two equals. Comparable to 'cooperative', being more about the reference/association that accommodates the equality rather than the equality itself.


  • #4
    pickarooney
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 36,275 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    I have absolutely no idea what you just said but it sounds about right :D


  • #5
    MathsManiac
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,595 ✭✭✭MathsManiac


    OED flags it as archaic or literary, and defines it thus:
    -adj. equal with one another.
    -n. an equal.

    This seems to me to indicate that, as you first suggested, it's a word that's not really needed.


  • #6
    Earthhorse
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,724 ✭✭✭✭Earthhorse


    Cianos wrote: »
    I was thinking it could be a better choice for describing the association of two equals. Comparable to 'cooperative', being more about the reference/association that accommodates the equality rather than the equality itself.
    pickarooney wrote: »
    I have absolutely no idea what you just said but it sounds about right :D

    I think what he's saying is that it's something along the lines of co-director, co-producer i.e. the two people are equal in a particular context. Why you would ever use the more general co-equal is beyond me though.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement