• db2@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 days ago

    Only if you don’t bother to learn what the words you use mean.

    Inherited from Middle English con-, from Latin con-, from cum (“with”). … Indicating a common origin, from, coming from the root: consequence as what comes from the sequence

      • bizarroland@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        3 days ago

        I think that would be presequence.

        Pro means on behalf of or forward, so a prosequence would be something that pushes the sequence forward, a prosequence would be something like, “you know there is a bomb that is about to go off, and if you do not dismantle it, your child will die. So you must attempt to defuse the bomb at the risk of your own life”.

        The knowledge of and opportunity to act to defuse the bomb is the prosequence that has led you to this point.

        It could also be something like you were walking by a gas station and your hand started itching, so you went and bought a lottery ticket and won the lottery. The itchy hand would be the prosequence that pushed you towards winning the lottery.

        • absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          That is the “antecedent”,

          Antecedent: A preceding occurrence, cause, or event.

          • bizarroland@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 days ago

            That’s actually a very good catch.

            I didn’t think about the word antecedent, but I would say that there is a slight linguistic difference between an antecedent and a prosequence.

            A prosequence is a sequence of events, whereas an antecedent doesn’t have to necessarily be a series of events.

            For instance, in order to have a sequel to a book, you have to have the original book. The original book would be the antecedent of the sequel, whereas the prosequence of the sequel would be writing the first book, which led to the series of events that caused the second book to be written.

            So every prosequence would be an antecedent, but not every antecedent would be a prosequence.

            That being said, I am just making up words, so if the world disagrees with my definitions, then the world gets to choose what they prefer, because that’s how language works.

            Just like the creator of the word GIF pronounces it as JIF, even though everyone knows its GIF.

            • absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              2 days ago

              Fair, antecedent is usually referring to a singular event/trigger.

              Also 100% on board with GIF ignoring the original authors intent.