Peter Jennings dead

Wow, I didn’t even know he was sick. Lung cancer.

Whaht’s strange is no one mentions whether or not he was a smoker.

Sad though. I always kind of liked him. Seems like ABC anchors die (relatively) young.

The CNN story said:

“He admitted being a smoker until about 20 years ago, and said he ‘was weak and I smoked over 9/11.’”

Peter Jennings was just so damned likeable. Reading about this made me sad.

He got his start in my dinky little sort-of hometown, Brockville, Ontario, at dinky little AM radio station CFJR. Thought it was funny that they got this wrong in the NY Times obit; called it Brockton.

He was very publicly diagnosed very months ago (in February) and started undergoing treatment immediately after the diagnosis; he was an admitted smoker up till something like 20 years ago and started smoking on 9/11 - not sure how long it lasted after that.

Very sad day, Jennings was probably the most learned, knowledgeable, and presentable journalists of “the Big Three.”

Corrected: it was announced in April. I remember being in a hotel room when it was announced, just the wrong month. And I pretty much didn’t say anything different than others presented above, just kind of repeated the same facts. Ah well.

— Alan

Oh, right, he was in New York for 9/11. I’d love to find out about the incidence of lung cancer for those caught in the cloud of toxins that spewed from the hole over the weeks after it occured…

Brooklyn seemed to be mostly spared, but I headed into Mahattan and was in it’s path about a week later. It was brutal. Like being next to a burning trashbag.

I’ll give you the second two, but he was a high school dropout.

Completing high school does not make you learned. I would concur that Jennings was indeed learned along with the other attributes mentioned.

Carl

The word’s connotation is one of formal education. My correction was a usage note, not an insult to Jennings.

Eh, it is?

Not trying to pick a fight, but I’d always thought the connotation was of a person who had gained insight through research and study, not formal classroom settings.

And also the best news anchor to be a guest on The Daily Show. Brian Williams does a good job taking up that mantle, at least.

[quote=“Nick_Walter”]

Eh, it is?

Not trying to pick a fight, but I’d always thought the connotation was of a person who had gained insight through research and study, not formal classroom settings.[/quote]

Well you can take it to mean a lot of different things - literally I suppose you can say to be learned means you need to be taught.

Me personally I use to mean, well, you’re knowledgeable, experienced, well-read, etc. You know, learned.

Usually if its like educational I would have said something more along the lines of scholarly.

— Alan

Well, you said he was learned and then said he was knowledgeable also, so I took it that you thought they meant two different things. Which they more or less do. Subtly.

It’s past tense, so, literally, it means you’ve learned. As in, have been taught, possibly self-taught.

Or possibly educated?

Adjectives don’t have a past tense. “Learned” is a whole different animal from the verb “to learn”.

Adjectives don’t have a past tense. “Learned” is a whole different animal from the verb “to learn”.[/quote]

“Learned” could be a pluperfect, or an adjectival past participle, both of which are forms of past tense.

This morning I ate poached eggs and drank brewed coffee. Unfortunately, the churned butter could not save the burned toast.

How could a word be considered a “whole different animal” (let alone correctly as a “wholly different animal”) from the verb it’s derived from?

But it isn’t. Learning something isn’t the same as being learned, while crashing something does indeed make it crashed. Also, the pluperfect is always formed with the auxiliary verb “had”.

How could a word be considered a “whole different animal” (let alone correctly as a “wholly different animal”) from the verb it’s derived from?

That’s just the way it is sometimes in English. Good snag on the whole different thing, though. That last sentence was actually just a fragment, too. Oh, the vernacularity.

I think Peter Jennings would have very much enjoyed this.

But it isn’t. Learning something isn’t the same as being learned, while crashing something does indeed make it crashed. Also, the pluperfect is always formed with the auxiliary verb “had”.[/quote]

But it is! I’m not disputing meaning. “Learned” as an adjectival past participle does not have the same meaning as “learned” as a past tense verb, agreed. My only point is that past tense adjectives are extremely common.

If by common you mean “there’s no such thing”. Adjectives don’t have tenses. Adjectives can be made from past tense forms of verbs, but there’s no past tense for “inane”. Hint, hint.

As for your continued assertion that learned is the past participle of “to learn”, no. There’s more to it than just adding -ed. It also has to make sense. For example, what’s the past participle of “to talk”?