Well, let's see ... David has supposedly posted the definition of "attorn" and "attorney" from the original 1828 edition of Webster's.
However, David must think that people don't check his sources ... or that others don't know how to look things up online.
Here is what David posted as the definition of "attorn" from Websters ...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by David
ATTORN. To turn. In the feudal law, to turn, or transfer homage and service from one lord to another. This is the act of feudatories, vassals, or tenants, upon the alienation of the estate.
|
Indeed, this definition is pretty much the definition as cited in the 1828 edition of Websters.
http://65.66.134.201/cgi-bin/webster...web1828=attorn
HOWEVER, when it comes to the definition of "attorney" ... David has apparently taken a few liberties ...
Here's what David claims the dictionary says ...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by David
ATTORNEY - [Norm. attournon; torne, id. ; from tour, tourn, turn, change. One who takes the turn or place of another. See ATTORN and TURN.]
|
And here's what the online version says in relevant part ...
Quote:
|
One who is appointed or admitted in the place of another, to manage his matters in law. The word formerly signified any person who did business for another; but its sense is now chiefly or wholly restricted to persons who act as substitutes for the persons concerned, in prosecuting and defending actions before courts of justice, or in transacting other business in which legal rights are involved. The word answers to the procurator, (proctor,) of the civilians.
|
http://65.66.134.201/cgi-bin/webster...b1828=attorney
By the way, the citation online doesn't have the reference to "attorn" and "turn".
Which should make one wonder whether David added it to suit his purposes.
But David would never lie and stretch the truth.
David was able to quote the definition of "attorn" verbatim. And the online version matches what David said.
However, when it came to the definition of "attorney" ... David DID NOT quote it accurately.
Why?