5 ms·

You think it's technically incorrect usage because you didn't know other uses of it nor its root. Technically the quoted sentence is 100% correct, concerted als

by caio1982 8y ago

You think it's technically incorrect usage because you didn't know other uses of it nor its root. Technically the quoted sentence is 100% correct, concerted also means something you tried hard, struggled with, strived to get done. The musical concert actually derives its meaning from that, but done by a group put together: https://www.etymonline.com/word/concert https://www.etymonline.com/word/concert

gnicholas 8y ago
I have looked for but never found a definition of "concerted" like the one you described. Can you provide one?
- caio1982 8y ago
  Have you actually clicked on the link I put at the end of my comment?
  - gnicholas 8y ago
    Yep. It talks about the noun and verb "concert". It doesn't mention "concerted" though, which is the word I'm interested in. These words are obviously related, but in determining the definition of a word, one typically looks to the explicit definition — not to the definitions of related words. If "concerted" can also have the meaning that you describe (and that I grew up believing in), then why isn't this meaning/usage included in any definition for "concerted"?
    - caio1982 8y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participle
      - gnicholas 8y ago
        If you can't provide any direct support for your position (which is contradicted by dictionary definitions [1-3] and a forum discussion on the topic [4]), I won't continue to engage. Good day! 1: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/concerted https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/concerted 2: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/concerted http://www.dictionary.com/browse/concerted 3: https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/concerted https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/c... 4: https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2011/04/concerted.html https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2011/04/concerted.html
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
        dsnuh 8y ago
        https://www.etymonline.com/word/concerted https://www.etymonline.com/word/concerted says it is a past participle of "concern". Not sure if it is correct, but it makes some sense if viewed with this in mind?
        pdonis 8y ago
        Here are two dictionary entries that do support using "concerted" to apply to a single person: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/concerted https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/concerted (entry 1.1) https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/concerted https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/conce... Note also that your link #4 references the Oxford English Dictionary, which is where the first link I give above comes from. The argument given in your link #4 seems plausible, but given the fact that there are reputable sources leaning both ways, I don't think you can say the single person usage is simply wrong. Perhaps "uncommon" might be a better term.
        gnicholas 8y ago
        Thanks for adding these to the discussion. This was the sort of thing that I was hoping others would contribute. It's an interesting question as to what a word means when dictionaries differ. In some cases, the differences might exist on a spectrum (e.g., is "furious" more upset than "livid"). But in this case, we have a completely separate meaning that some dictionaries bless but others do not hint at. I would be curious to see whether there are historical trends here, which might hint if we're headed in one direction or the other.
    - pdonis 8y ago
      > It doesn't mention "concerted" though Yes, it does. Here is the entire verb entry from that link: 1690s, "to contrive, adjust;" 1707, "to contrive and arrange mutually," from French concerter and directly from Italian concertare "to bring into agreement" (see concert (n.)). Related: Concerted; concerting See it?
      - gnicholas 8y ago
        Yeah, I meant that it doesn't mention it anywhere near where it talks about striving (which was what caio1982 had asserted was the meaning). That only appears in the discussion of the noun "concert". I should have worded that more clearly.

gnicholas 8y ago

I have looked for but never found a definition of "concerted" like the one you described. Can you provide one?

caio1982 8y ago
Have you actually clicked on the link I put at the end of my comment?
- gnicholas 8y ago
  Yep. It talks about the noun and verb "concert". It doesn't mention "concerted" though, which is the word I'm interested in. These words are obviously related, but in determining the definition of a word, one typically looks to the explicit definition — not to the definitions of related words. If "concerted" can also have the meaning that you describe (and that I grew up believing in), then why isn't this meaning/usage included in any definition for "concerted"?
  - caio1982 8y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participle
    - gnicholas 8y ago
      If you can't provide any direct support for your position (which is contradicted by dictionary definitions [1-3] and a forum discussion on the topic [4]), I won't continue to engage. Good day! 1: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/concerted https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/concerted 2: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/concerted http://www.dictionary.com/browse/concerted 3: https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/concerted https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/c... 4: https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2011/04/concerted.html https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2011/04/concerted.html
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - dsnuh 8y ago
        https://www.etymonline.com/word/concerted https://www.etymonline.com/word/concerted says it is a past participle of "concern". Not sure if it is correct, but it makes some sense if viewed with this in mind?
      - pdonis 8y ago
        Here are two dictionary entries that do support using "concerted" to apply to a single person: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/concerted https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/concerted (entry 1.1) https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/concerted https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/conce... Note also that your link #4 references the Oxford English Dictionary, which is where the first link I give above comes from. The argument given in your link #4 seems plausible, but given the fact that there are reputable sources leaning both ways, I don't think you can say the single person usage is simply wrong. Perhaps "uncommon" might be a better term.
        gnicholas 8y ago
        Thanks for adding these to the discussion. This was the sort of thing that I was hoping others would contribute. It's an interesting question as to what a word means when dictionaries differ. In some cases, the differences might exist on a spectrum (e.g., is "furious" more upset than "livid"). But in this case, we have a completely separate meaning that some dictionaries bless but others do not hint at. I would be curious to see whether there are historical trends here, which might hint if we're headed in one direction or the other.
  - pdonis 8y ago
    > It doesn't mention "concerted" though Yes, it does. Here is the entire verb entry from that link: 1690s, "to contrive, adjust;" 1707, "to contrive and arrange mutually," from French concerter and directly from Italian concertare "to bring into agreement" (see concert (n.)). Related: Concerted; concerting See it?
    - gnicholas 8y ago
      Yeah, I meant that it doesn't mention it anywhere near where it talks about striving (which was what caio1982 had asserted was the meaning). That only appears in the discussion of the noun "concert". I should have worded that more clearly.