|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 725
old hand
|
OP
old hand
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 725 |
Hi everyone ~
I read the following sentence in an article, and cringed.
"Wyman is pictured with then husband Ronald Reagan in 1941."
I know the sentence could have been written to say "her husband at the time..." but is there a word or phrase for that?
I'm drawing a blank...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 956
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 956 |
Kia ora Coffebean,
Words that spring to mind are, former, erstwhile, past, previous/prior (depending on current marital status) Not quite 'her husband at the time' but a reference to their past association. Maybe 'contemporary' would relate them to the same time?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
Hi everyone ~
I read the following sentence in an article, and cringed.
"Wyman is pictured with then husband Ronald Reagan in 1941."
I know the sentence could have been written to say "her husband at the time..." but is there a word or phrase for that?
I'm drawing a blank... I can see cringing when reading about Ronald Reagan, but the construction you mention seems to me to be perfectly ordinary if not all that common. Are you looking for a word that describes that sort of construction?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
Coffeebean!! Where have you BEEN?!?!? [rhetorical question, Sweet Thing] I have MISSED you, chickadee!
But as for your ref., I've seen it as "then-husband"--though that still sounds awkward. I assume the print media do things like that to conserve on space. Would have been just as correct to leave out the then, IMHO.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,067
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,067 |
Hi everyone ~
I read the following sentence in an article, and cringed.
"Wyman is pictured with then husband Ronald Reagan in 1941."
I know the sentence could have been written to say "her husband at the time..." but is there a word or phrase for that? Yes there is phrase for that. It's "then husband." What's wrong with that? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 876
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 876 |
"Wyman is pictured with Ronald Reagan, her husband in 1941."
This has exactly the same number of words and only the addition of a comma, if that's acceptable. :0)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 557
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 557 |
"Wyman is pictured with Ronald Reagan, her husband in 1941." That says RR was her husband in 1941 and does not say when the picture was taken. That later he was not her husband is only implied in this sentence rather than stated. Adding another comma: "Wyman is pictured with Ronald Reagan, her husband, in 1941." we have when the picture was taken but we've lost the information about the change of marital status altogether.
Last edited by Myridon; 10/17/08 02:55 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 876
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 876 |
I disagree. The photo is in black and white and she looks to be all of 20-something, both visual indicators for a reader to discern the time period of the photo. Absent the photo, however, it would be more clear to say "Wyman is pictured with her third husband, Ronald Reagan, in 1941."
Astoundingly (to me), Jane Wyman was married and divorced 4 (four!) times by age 37.Then she gave up...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 557
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 557 |
Whether or not you can guess the approximate time period of the photo doesn't change the meaning of the sentence. Knowing the facts behind a story doesn't make an incorrect sentence correct.
Try this:
In this 1939 engagement photo, Jane Wyman is pictured with Ronald Reagan, her husband in 1941.
which is perfectly fine, while
In this 1939 engagement photo, Jane Wyman is pictured with Ronald Reagan, her husband, in 1941.
which has two contradictions. He's not her husband in the photo and the photo taken in 1939 can't picture her in 1941 unless it's a very special camera.
Mentioning that he was her third husband still leaves out what is implied by "her then husband".
Last edited by Myridon; 10/17/08 06:30 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 876
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 876 |
In this 1939 engagement photo, Jane Wyman is pictured with Ronald Reagan, her husband, in 1941.
which has two contradictions. He's not her husband in the photo and the photo taken in 1939 can't picture her in 1941 unless it's a very special camera. I'm confused about the point of this example. I constructed no such sentence, or anything like it. I thought Coffeebean was looking for something less awkward, which was the intent of my original response. Perhaps this will satisfy?: "Wyman is pictured in 1941 while married to her third husband, Ronald Reagan." I believe this makes clear that Ronald Reagan was her husband "then".
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,809
Members9,187
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
403
guests, and
0
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
