Skip to main content

meaning - 'Received' - path from literal to figurative


'Received' as an adjective is interesting - considering that the past -participle is literal reverse of 'to give':



  • We have received the gift


(someone has given us a gift)


But as an adjective it is only figurative:



  • We speak Received Pronunciation


(we speak a standard, commonly accepted pronunciation



  • Ecclesiastes pronounces received wisdom


(the bible book states wisdom that is conventional or understood by everyone once presented to them)


The OED starts its historical listing of meanings of the adjective with this figurative meaning.




  1. a. Generally adopted, accepted, or approved as true, authoritative, or standard. Frequently in received opinion, received wisdom.



And the OED's first use is:



1440 Promptorium Parvulorum (Harl. 221) 425 Receyvyd, receptus, acceptus.


1543 R. Record Ground of Artes ii. sig. S.viii Procedynge by no grounded reason, but onely by a receaued fourme.


1597 T. Morley Plaine & Easie Introd. Musicke Annot. sig. *4 I am loth to breake a receiued custome.



The difficulty I'm having is with the metaphorical leap. It's a bit of an understated but authoritarian inference: the thing you 'get' is the thing you're supposed to, and you're supposed to follow that as the right thing to get/do. That's a long tortuous abstract semantic path to go from 'I got it'.


I feel like there is a missing link, some intermediary usage.


Is there any evidence of such an intermediary usage, not exactly 'we haughtily presume this is what you follow', but not just the boring literal 'this is the received gift'?



Answer



It seems like the distinction existed about as early as the word "receive" entered the English language in the 14th century. The "figurative" meaning described in the question appears to be the meaning defined in the OED under receive in the definitions under branch I, especially I.1.a., whereas the meaning we often think of today is defined in branch IV.



I. To admit or accept (a person or thing).


1. trans.


a. To accept (something) as an authority, rule, or practice; to admit the truth or validity of. Cf. received adj. 1. Now chiefly in religious contexts.



Note the reference in this first definition to the adjectival form. Its first attestation is from 1318, making it among the earliest variations of the word used in English. It contrasts with the definitions under branch IV:



IV. To be given (a thing), have conferred; to experience, suffer, undergo. (In this branch the subject is a more or less passive recipient.)



Branches II and III appear to lie somewhere in the middle:



II. spec. To admit or accept (a person) into one's company; to meet, welcome.


III. To take (in) or accept (something); to permit (something) to be done, submit.



However, the OED offers a note that seems to draw the starkest distinction between I - III and IV:



The principal distinction between the senses of the word in English is that between the more active senses included in the earlier branches and the almost passive ones placed at IV. This distinction, however, is not always clear in actual use, and it is often difficult or impossible to determine which aspect of the word is meant to be prominent in particular instances. Owing to the very extensive use of the verb from the 14th cent. onwards, there is also much overlapping of its various applications, and in many examples it is uncertain whether a specific or merely general sense is intended.



Based on the early uses of sense I.1.a., my interpretation is that there was not exactly a metaphorical leap from one meaning of "receive" to another, but that it was used in different contexts with these two separate meanings since it joined the English language.


To help explain the disparate meanings, OED's etymology notes examine the various meanings of recevoir in French prior to the use of "receive" in English. I've emboldened the portions that seem to carry the "figurative" sense as described in the question (I also emboldened and italicized the first sense because it contrasts with the figurative senses and seems to carry the "literal" meaning).


It seems that this etymological breakdown of recevoir suggests that the distinction in meaning that we see in English existed earlier in French and Anglo-Norman. Perhaps someone can trace the history of the etymons back even further.



French recevoir (second half of the 10th cent. as reciwre )) to welcome (a person), to give shelter to (a person) (second half of the 10th cent.), to take (something given by another person) into one's hands or one's possession (c1050), to have (a blow, wound, etc.) inflicted on one (c1100), to meet, welcome, or greet (a person) in a specified manner (first half of the 12th cent.), to experience (an emotion, e.g. joy) (second half of the 12th cent.), to undergo (baptism) (second half of the 12th cent.), to take (a wife) in marriage (second half of the 12th cent.), (of God) to listen to, hear (a prayer) (late 12th cent.), to suffer, undergo, be subjected to (something painful or unpleasant) (12th cent. in Anglo-Norman), to entertain (a person) (early 13th cent.), to accept (something) as true or valid, to accept (something) as an authority, rule, or practice (early 13th cent. or earlier in Anglo-Norman), to receive (the sacrament of the Eucharist) (first half of the 13th cent. or earlier in Anglo-Norman), to come into possession of (a city or country) (13th cent.), to admit (a person into a profession) (13th cent. or earlier in Anglo-Norman), (of remedies) to be made up of, to contain (13th cent. or earlier in Anglo-Norman), (in astrology) to accept (a planet into another planet's house or exaltation) (13th cent. used reflexively, end of the 15th cent. used passively)



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

etymology - Origin of the greeting "Sweet dreams".

Does anybody know the etymology of the phrase "sweet dreams"? I tried googling but did not find anything satisfying. Is this a relatively new phrase of the modern world or has this been in use for some time? I think it's the latter one. Answer The OED has the interjection as "a farewell to someone going to bed" from the 20th century: 1908 Sears Roebuck Catal. 198/1 Tenor Solos..Good Bye, Sweet Dreams, Good Bye. But it goes back until at least the 19th and possibly 18th centuries. John Wolcot, writing under the pseudonym of Peter Pindar, used it in his poem "Orson and Ellen; A Legendary Tale" published in 1801: Also from 1801 in The infernal Quixote (Page 287) by Charles Lucas: In the March 1776 of The Universal Magazine was published "The Serenade. A Pastoral Tale. From the German of Gesner" , where the shepherd Daphnis watches over his beloved as she sleeps and sings: The same tale appears in 1776's as Idyl XI, " Daphnis ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

What are the similarities between the relationships of the characters in The Outsiders and Romeo and Juliet?

At first glance, it might appear as if the characters in  The Outsiders  by S. E. Hinton and  Romeo and Juliet  by William Shakespeare do not have much in common; however, when one isolates the core of the conflicts, it becomes clear that the relationships in both stories are rooted in rivalry and secrecy.  In both  The Outsiders  and  Romeo and Juliet , an overarching theme is rivalry. While   socioeconomic status separates the greasers from the Socs in The Outsiders , last names separates the Montagues from the Capulets, who appear to be relatively equal in terms of socioeconomic status. Due to these rivalries, there are instances of deadly interactions in both stories. In  The Outsiders , Johnny kills Bob (whether his actions were justified or not is debatable). In  Romeo and Juliet , Romeo kills Tybalt and Paris, and Tybalt kills Mercutio. These deaths have profound effects on the main characters. In Ponyboy's case, the Johnny's death and other events in the novel inspire h...
Post a Comment
Read more