Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
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.

Coequal

  • 08-11-2011 10:52AM
    #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: 36,196 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: 36,196 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: 14,720 ✭✭✭✭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