"Does anyone have" or "Does anyone has"?

[k***@galaway.com]

Hi,

Whis one is the correct usage "Does anyone have a pen?" or "Does anyone
has a pen?"?

Thanks

Kens

[raymond o'hara]

Post by k***@galaway.com
Hi,
Whis one is the correct usage "Does anyone have a pen?" or "Does anyone
has a pen?"?
Thanks
Kens

have

[ken]

Thanks raymond. Do you know what gramatic rule is behind this, and if I
can find a reference to this rule/usage?

[Donna Richoux]

Post by k***@galaway.com
Hi,
Whis one is the correct usage "Does anyone have a pen?" or "Does anyone
has a pen?"?
Thanks
Kens

have

It's the "do" or "does" that must agree with the subject. The other verb
is always going to be in the infinitive form.

Do they walk...?
Do they go...?
Do they have...?

Does he walk...?
Does he go...?
Does he have...?

[nemo]

Post by Donna Richoux

Post by k***@galaway.com
Hi,
Whis one is the correct usage "Does anyone have a pen?" or "Does anyone
has a pen?"?
Thanks
Kens

have

It's the "do" or "does" that must agree with the subject. The other verb
is always going to be in the infinitive form.
Do they walk...?
Do they go...?
Do they have...?
Does he walk...?
Does he go...?
Does he have...?
--
Best - Donna Richoux

Go originally meant walk.

Makes "A dog goes woof" seem a bit stupid!

I'm going to cook dinner.

Aha! The kitchen is a long way away, is it?

[Martin Ambuhl]

Post by nemo
Go originally meant walk.
Makes "A dog goes woof" seem a bit stupid!
I'm going to cook dinner.
Aha! The kitchen is a long way away, is it?

The following is the first signification entry, after a very long series
of discussion of written forms of 'go' and its inflections. Please note
the 'Obs.' = obsolete at the end. It makes your point "seem a bit stupid!":

†1. a. = To walk; to move or travel on one's feet (opposed to creep,
fly, ride, swim, etc.); to move on foot at an ordinary pace
(opposed to run, etc.). to go alone: to walk without support. Obs.

[Django Cat]

Post by k***@galaway.com

Post by Donna Richoux

Post by k***@galaway.com
Hi,
Whis one is the correct usage "Does anyone have a pen?" or "Does

anyone

Post by Donna Richoux

Post by k***@galaway.com
has a pen?"?
Thanks
Kens

have

It's the "do" or "does" that must agree with the subject. The other verb
is always going to be in the infinitive form.
Do they walk...?
Do they go...?
Do they have...?
Does he walk...?
Does he go...?
Does he have...?
--
Best - Donna Richoux

Go originally meant walk.
Makes "A dog goes woof" seem a bit stupid!
I'm going to cook dinner.
Aha! The kitchen is a long way away, is it?

I'm going to throw up.

[Alan Jones]

Post by k***@galaway.com
Hi,
Whis one is the correct usage "Does anyone have a pen?" or "Does anyone
has a pen?"?

[...]

have

In British English one could also say "Has anyone a pen?" or (informally)
"Anyone got a pen?"

Alan Jones

[Tony Cooper]

Post by Alan Jones

Post by k***@galaway.com
Hi,
Whis one is the correct usage "Does anyone have a pen?" or "Does anyone
has a pen?"?

[...]

have

In British English one could also say "Has anyone a pen?" or (informally)
"Anyone got a pen?"

While I don't quibble with the above, I would ask: "Anyone have a
pen?".

[Ray Butterworth]

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 15:47:46 GMT,
...

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Alan Jones
In British English one could also say "Has anyone a pen?" or (informally)
"Anyone got a pen?"

i.e.
Has anyone [got] a pen?
or
[Has] anyone got a pen?

Post by Tony Cooper
While I don't quibble with the above, I would ask: "Anyone have a
pen?".

i.e. [Does] anyone have a pen?

In general, being pedantic rather than eliptical
almost always makes the correct form obvious.

[Ian Noble]

On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 18:11:57 +0000 (UTC),

Post by Ray Butterworth
On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 15:47:46 GMT,
...

Post by Alan Jones
In British English one could also say "Has anyone a pen?" or (informally)
"Anyone got a pen?"

i.e.
Has anyone [got] a pen?

If you're suggesting the implied presence of the extra word, I
disagree. Whilst it's possible to add it without altering the
meaning, it's not necessary (any more than it would be necessary when
making, "I have a pen," interrogative as, "Have I a pen?"). "Has" is
possessive in and of itself, and the sentence perfectly adequate as it
stands.

Cheers - Ian

[Daniel James]

[ uw.english-usage removed from newsgroup list as my newsserver doesn't carry
it ]

Post by Ian Noble
On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 18:11:57 +0000 (UTC),

Post by Ray Butterworth
On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 15:47:46 GMT,
...

Post by Alan Jones
In British English one could also say "Has anyone a pen?" or (informally)
"Anyone got a pen?"

i.e.
Has anyone [got] a pen?

If you're suggesting the implied presence of the extra word, I
disagree. Whilst it's possible to add it without altering the
meaning, it's not necessary ...

It's not necessary, in that sense, no.

In my experience of informal spoken British English, though, the word "got" is
almost never omitted (unlike "has").

It's quite a significant pondian marker. "Have you a pen?" is quite sufficient,
but most of us Brits would actually say "have you got a pen?", while a lot of
yanks say "do you have a pen?" (which is a question with a subtly different
meeaning to most Brits).

Cheers,
Daniel.

[Areff]

Post by Daniel James
It's quite a significant pondian marker. "Have you a pen?" is quite sufficient,
but most of us Brits would actually say "have you got a pen?", while a lot of
yanks say "do you have a pen?" (which is a question with a subtly different
meeaning to most Brits).

What's the difference in meaning in the pen context?

"Have you a pen?" is impossible in modern AmE (except perhaps TCE and
other renegade dialects).

[Raymond S. Wise]

Post by Daniel James
[ uw.english-usage removed from newsgroup list as my newsserver doesn't carry
it ]

Post by Ian Noble
On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 18:11:57 +0000 (UTC),

Post by Ray Butterworth
On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 15:47:46 GMT,
...

Post by Alan Jones
In British English one could also say "Has anyone a pen?" or (informally)
"Anyone got a pen?"

i.e.
Has anyone [got] a pen?

If you're suggesting the implied presence of the extra word, I
disagree. Whilst it's possible to add it without altering the
meaning, it's not necessary ...

It's not necessary, in that sense, no.
In my experience of informal spoken British English, though, the word "got" is
almost never omitted (unlike "has").
It's quite a significant pondian marker. "Have you a pen?" is quite sufficient,
but most of us Brits would actually say "have you got a pen?", while a lot of
yanks say "do you have a pen?" (which is a question with a subtly different
meeaning to most Brits).
Cheers,
Daniel.

Note that the difference between "Have you a pen?" and "Have you got a pen?"
is not simply a matter of omitting a word. In the first, "have" is the verb
used to establish possession, while in the second, "have got" is the verb.
Many people make the mistake of thinking that "have" is a verb of possession
in the second example, but it is not, so it is just as wrong to speak of
"dropping 'got'" or "adding 'got'" than it is of speaking of "dropping the
'g'" when describing such words as "speakin'" and "walkin'," when it's
really a case of the substitution of one form for another.

The only place I can find where "have got" is shown as a verb in a main
entry is in WordNet 2.0, via www.dictionary.com . Alternately, we could see
"have got," as the *Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary* puts it, "used in the
present perfect tense form with present meaning." In that case, "have" is
not used to establish possession either, but is instead an auxiliary verb.

In either of these cases, a person arguing against the use of "have got" on
the basis that "'got' is unnecessary" is arguing from a flawed premise.

[Raymond S. Wise]

"Raymond S. Wise" <***@gbronline.com> wrote in message news:nLmdnQYCxp4a1CrcRVn-***@gbronline.com...


[...]

Post by Raymond S. Wise
Note that the difference between "Have you a pen?" and "Have you got a pen?"
is not simply a matter of omitting a word. In the first, "have" is the verb
used to establish possession, while in the second, "have got" is the verb.
Many people make the mistake of thinking that "have" is a verb of possession
in the second example, but it is not, so it is just as wrong to speak of
"dropping 'got'" or "adding 'got'" than it is of speaking of "dropping the
'g'" when describing such words as "speakin'" and "walkin'," when it's
really a case of the substitution of one form for another.
The only place I can find where "have got" is shown as a verb in a main
entry is in WordNet 2.0, via www.dictionary.com . Alternately, we could see
"have got," as the *Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary* puts it, "used in the
present perfect tense form with present meaning." In that case, "have" is
not used to establish possession either, but is instead an auxiliary verb.
In either of these cases, a person arguing against the use of "have got" on
the basis that "'got' is unnecessary" is arguing from a flawed premise.

In the *Oxford-Hachette French Dictionary,* a corpus-based bilingual
dictionary, I found, under the entry "got" in the English section, the
following: "*to have ~* avoir[...]" (where the tilde represents the word
"got"). So I decided to do further searches via www.onelook.com . I found
"have got" given as an equal variant for "have" in the *Cambridge Advanced
Learner's Dictionary* and the *Cambridge Dictionary of American English,*
under the entries for "have" and in a number of phrasal verbs and idioms.
See

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/results.asp?dict=B&searchword=got

and

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/results.asp?dict=A&searchword=got

[Charles Riggs]

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 15:47:46 GMT, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Alan Jones

Post by k***@galaway.com
Hi,
Whis one is the correct usage "Does anyone have a pen?" or "Does anyone
has a pen?"?

[...]

have

In British English one could also say "Has anyone a pen?" or (informally)
"Anyone got a pen?"

While I don't quibble with the above, I would ask: "Anyone have a
pen?".

Awful, although better than "Got a pen?"

I'd ask, if I were ever without a pen, that being as unlikely as
snowballs in Florida, "Does anyone have a pen?" There is a huge
difference between that way and your way, even if it doesn't seem so
at first glance.

[Django Cat]

Post by k***@galaway.com
Hi,
Whis one is the correct usage "Does anyone have a pen?" or "Does anyone
has a pen?"?
Thanks
Kens

'Have'. You have to follow the auxiliary verb 'do' with the
infinitive, and it's the auxiliary 'does' that shows that 'anyone' is
singular. In exactly the same way "does he have any friends?"

DC

[Ian Noble]

Post by Django Cat

Post by k***@galaway.com
Hi,
Whis one is the correct usage "Does anyone have a pen?" or "Does anyone
has a pen?"?
Thanks
Kens

'Have'. You have to follow the auxiliary verb 'do' with the
infinitive, and it's the auxiliary 'does' that shows that 'anyone' is
singular. In exactly the same way "does he have any friends?"

"Does everyone have a pen?"

Cheers - Ian

[Jukka Aho]

Post by Ian Noble
"Does everyone have a pen?"

"Go wash your hands, young man! You don't know where those pens have
been."

[Gary Eickmeier]

Post by k***@galaway.com
Hi,
Whis one is the correct usage "Does anyone have a pen?" or "Does anyone
has a pen?"?

Have. Second person.

Gary Eickmeier

[Django Cat]

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 15:48:27 GMT, Gary Eickmeier

Post by Gary Eickmeier

Post by k***@galaway.com
Hi,
Whis one is the correct usage "Does anyone have a pen?" or "Does anyone
has a pen?"?

Have. Second person.

Person doesn't really enter into it. Second person is 'you'. The
verb here is 'have' because it's an infinitive, not to agree with
'you' (or I, we, he, she or they). If anything, 'anyone' is third
person:-

Does he have a pen?
Does she have a pen?
Do they have a pen?
Does anyone have a pen?


DC, first person.

[Gary Eickmeier]

Post by Django Cat
Person doesn't really enter into it. Second person is 'you'. The
verb here is 'have' because it's an infinitive, not to agree with
'you' (or I, we, he, she or they). If anything, 'anyone' is third
person:-

Right. I guess django cat said it best.

Gary Eickmeier

[Gary Eickmeier]

Whoops -

[nemo]

Post by k***@galaway.com
Hi,
Whis one is the correct usage "Does anyone have a pen?" or "Does anyone
has a pen?"?
Thanks
Kens

It is definitely "Does anyone have a pen?" No question.

Why all the discussion?

[Carter Crain]

This sentence does not sound right but I am not sure what is wrong with it.

"I am deeply concerned . . . by . . . Williams' Nov. 2 editorial, "The
Drugging of America's Children," which purports that we are overmedicating
our children . . . "

Does "purports that" mean "contends that?"

I know that an editorial can purport to say something or other. But that is
not the sense of this sentence.

Carter Crain

[Mike Lyle]

Post by Carter Crain
This sentence does not sound right but I am not sure what is wrong with it.
"I am deeply concerned . . . by . . . Williams' Nov. 2 editorial, "The
Drugging of America's Children," which purports that we are
overmedicating our children . . . "
Does "purports that" mean "contends that?"
I know that an editorial can purport to say something or other. But
that is not the sense of this sentence.

= "whose purport is". It isn't at all a new way of using the word
(I've just checked), and not irregular; but I don't seem to see it in
other present-day writers. It's only a matter of style, I think.

Mike.

[nemo]

Post by Mike Lyle

Post by Carter Crain
This sentence does not sound right but I am not sure what is wrong with it.
"I am deeply concerned . . . by . . . Williams' Nov. 2 editorial,

"The

Post by Carter Crain
Drugging of America's Children," which purports that we are
overmedicating our children . . . "
Does "purports that" mean "contends that?"
I know that an editorial can purport to say something or other. But
that is not the sense of this sentence.

= "whose purport is". It isn't at all a new way of using the word
(I've just checked), and not irregular; but I don't seem to see it in
other present-day writers. It's only a matter of style, I think.
Mike.

Purport as a verb means to propose or intend, therefore,

". . which proposes that we are overmedicating our children . . . ", or,
". . which intends to show that we are overmedicating our children . . ."
". . the intention of which is to show that we are . . ." would be more
correct.

http://www.onelook.com/?w=purport&ls=a

[Peter Duncanson]

Post by nemo

Post by Mike Lyle

Post by Carter Crain
This sentence does not sound right but I am not sure what is wrong with it.
"I am deeply concerned . . . by . . . Williams' Nov. 2 editorial,

"The

Post by Carter Crain
Drugging of America's Children," which purports that we are
overmedicating our children . . . "
Does "purports that" mean "contends that?"
I know that an editorial can purport to say something or other. But
that is not the sense of this sentence.

= "whose purport is". It isn't at all a new way of using the word
(I've just checked), and not irregular; but I don't seem to see it in
other present-day writers. It's only a matter of style, I think.
Mike.

Purport as a verb means to propose or intend, therefore,
". . which proposes that we are overmedicating our children . . . ", or,
". . which intends to show that we are overmedicating our children . . ."
". . the intention of which is to show that we are . . ." would be more
correct.
http://www.onelook.com/?w=purport&ls=a

If you follow some the the links from that search you will find that the
verb purport has the meaning of "claim". This is given as either the only or
the first meaning. Note that this is rather different from the noun
'purport' which does not carry the same sense of doubt or uncertainty.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=purport
1 : to have the often specious appearance of being, intending, or claiming
(something implied or inferred) <a book that purports to be an objective
analysis>; also : CLAIM <foreign novels which he purports to have translated
-- Mary McCarthy>
2 : INTEND, PURPOSE

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861735800
1. claim to be something: to claim, seem, or profess to be something
specified. The letter is purported to be by Napoleon

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/purport?view=uk
appear to be or do, especially falsely.

To me, in the sentence mentioned by the OP:

"I am deeply concerned . . . by . . . Williams' Nov. 2 editorial, "The
Drugging of America's Children," which purports that we are overmedicating
our children . . . "

'purports' simply means 'claims' or, the milder, 'suggests'.

[Mike Lyle]

Post by nemo

Post by Mike Lyle

Post by Carter Crain
This sentence does not sound right but I am not sure what is

wrong

Post by nemo

Post by Mike Lyle

Post by Carter Crain
with it.
"I am deeply concerned . . . by . . . Williams' Nov. 2 editorial,
"The Drugging of America's Children," which purports that we are
overmedicating our children . . . "
Does "purports that" mean "contends that?"
I know that an editorial can purport to say something or other. But
that is not the sense of this sentence.

= "whose purport is". It isn't at all a new way of using the word
(I've just checked), and not irregular; but I don't seem to see it in
other present-day writers. It's only a matter of style, I think.
Mike.

Purport as a verb means to propose or intend, therefore,
". . which proposes that we are overmedicating our children . . .

",

Post by nemo
or, ". . which intends to show that we are overmedicating our
children . . ." ". . the intention of which is to show that we are

.

Post by nemo
. ." would be more correct.
http://www.onelook.com/?w=purport&ls=a

No, because it can also refer to intended _meaning_. Why not look
further down that OneLook page? There really is nothing wrong with
this usage; by the same token, there's nothing wrong with avoiding it
if you want to.

Mike.

[nemo]

Post by Mike Lyle

Post by nemo

Post by Mike Lyle

Post by Carter Crain
This sentence does not sound right but I am not sure what is

wrong

Post by nemo

Post by Mike Lyle

Post by Carter Crain
with it.
"I am deeply concerned . . . by . . . Williams' Nov. 2 editorial,
"The Drugging of America's Children," which purports that we are
overmedicating our children . . . "
Does "purports that" mean "contends that?"
I know that an editorial can purport to say something or other.

But

Post by nemo

Post by Mike Lyle

Post by Carter Crain
that is not the sense of this sentence.

= "whose purport is". It isn't at all a new way of using the word
(I've just checked), and not irregular; but I don't seem to see it

in

Post by nemo

Post by Mike Lyle
other present-day writers. It's only a matter of style, I think.
Mike.

Purport as a verb means to propose or intend, therefore,
". . which proposes that we are overmedicating our children . . .

",

Post by nemo
or, ". . which intends to show that we are overmedicating our
children . . ." ". . the intention of which is to show that we are

.

Post by nemo
. ." would be more correct.
http://www.onelook.com/?w=purport&ls=a

No, because it can also refer to intended _meaning_. Why not look
further down that OneLook page? There really is nothing wrong with
this usage; by the same token, there's nothing wrong with avoiding it
if you want to.

Ooooooooooooooh! Ark at her!

If this group were a hole in the ground, it would be a sar chasm!

[perchprism]

Post by Carter Crain
This sentence does not sound right but I am not sure what is wrong with it.
"I am deeply concerned . . . by . . . Williams' Nov. 2 editorial, "The
Drugging of America's Children," which purports that we are overmedicating
our children . . . "
Does "purports that" mean "contends that?"
I know that an editorial can purport to say something or other. But that is
not the sense of this sentence.

Here's my answer before looking it up: I don't like it. To purport implies
pretense.

Ok, now after: Same thing. My AHD is unclear. Under "purport" it seems to
allow a non-pejorative sense, but the usage note under "mean" makes it clear
that they meant to imply doubtfulness with the "profession" and "claim" they
use in the primary definition.

--
Perchprism
(southern New Jersey, near Philadelphia)

[Daniel James]

[ uw.something-or-other removed from newsgroup list as it isn't carried by
my news server ... what is it, anyway? ]

Post by perchprism
Here's my answer before looking it up: I don't like it. To purport implies
pretense.

Nooo ... not really. To "purport" something means to state it outwardly. One
can purport something that is true and sincerely believed, or one can
purport something that one does not really believe. The great thing about
"purport" is that you can use it to describe a statement being made without
making any judgement as to whether it is true or not.

.. or course, the other side of that coin is that if you go out of your way
to use such an unusual word to describe what someone else has said some
people will think you've done so because you don't believe it. IMHO It only
really has that connotation in compounds such as "he purports to believe",
which is usually a suggestion that the person in question is either mad,
deluded, or lying.

Cheers,
Daniel.

[perchprism]

Post by Daniel James
[ uw.something-or-other removed from newsgroup list as it isn't carried by
my news server ... what is it, anyway? ]

Post by perchprism
Here's my answer before looking it up: I don't like it. To purport implies
pretense.

Nooo ... not really. To "purport" something means to state it outwardly. One
can purport something that is true and sincerely believed, or one can
purport something that one does not really believe. The great thing about
"purport" is that you can use it to describe a statement being made without
making any judgement as to whether it is true or not.
.. or course, the other side of that coin is that if you go out of your way
to use such an unusual word to describe what someone else has said some
people will think you've done so because you don't believe it. IMHO It only
really has that connotation in compounds such as "he purports to believe",
which is usually a suggestion that the person in question is either mad,
deluded, or lying.

The usage note under "mean" in my AHD has: "*Purport* may imply doubtful
authenticity or pretense." It seems to me that if it may imply that, it
will. My guess is that we're looking at a relatively recently worsened word,
one that's pretty much lost whatever non-pejorative potential it ever had.
But the original question was not about its meaning but about the
construction "purports that," a question I suppose I didn't really address
because I thought the word itself was inappropriate in the context, making
the form irrelevant. But if you accept the word in that use, then "that" is
OK, sez me.

--
Perchprism
(southern New Jersey, near Philadelphia)

[John O'Flaherty]

Post by Carter Crain
This sentence does not sound right but I am not sure what is wrong with it.
"I am deeply concerned . . . by . . . Williams' Nov. 2 editorial, "The
Drugging of America's Children," which purports that we are overmedicating
our children . . . "
Does "purports that" mean "contends that?"
I know that an editorial can purport to say something or other. But that is
not the sense of this sentence.

I don't think it's right either. Both AHD and MW allow a noun use
meaning approximately, 'import'. But neither recognizes a verb use that
would be equivalent to 'claims' or 'asserts'.
The verb form seems to be followed by an infinitive with 'to', as in
your example- 'to purport to x'.

You just can't purport 'that' something.

--
john

[Mike Lyle]

John O'Flaherty wrote:
[...]

Post by John O'Flaherty
I don't think it's right either. Both AHD and MW allow a noun use
meaning approximately, 'import'. But neither recognizes a verb use
that would be equivalent to 'claims' or 'asserts'.
The verb form seems to be followed by an infinitive with 'to', as in
your example- 'to purport to x'.
You just can't purport 'that' something.

OED1 has examples from 1528 to 1858 for that range of meanings.
"...our letters...did purport"; "The Declaration also
purported...that..."; "It purports that some one...applied..."

As I said earlier, I think the use has become uncommon; but it
remains a matter of style, not of grammar.

Mike.

[John O'Flaherty]

Post by Mike Lyle
[...]

Post by John O'Flaherty
I don't think it's right either. Both AHD and MW allow a noun use
meaning approximately, 'import'. But neither recognizes a verb use
that would be equivalent to 'claims' or 'asserts'.
The verb form seems to be followed by an infinitive with 'to', as

in

Post by John O'Flaherty
your example- 'to purport to x'.
You just can't purport 'that' something.

OED1 has examples from 1528 to 1858 for that range of meanings.
"...our letters...did purport"; "The Declaration also
purported...that..."; "It purports that some one...applied..."
As I said earlier, I think the use has become uncommon; but it
remains a matter of style, not of grammar.

I think it's a semantic question, but since it affects whether the word
can be classed with words that mean 'saying' and can have a 'that'
clause as object, it spills over into grammar.
Anyway, if the last cite is 1858, then it's beyond uncommon. Of course,
the writer can use the word any way at all, at the usual risk that to
some it will sound wrong.

--
john

[Donna Richoux]

John O'Flaherty <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

[re "purport that"]

Post by John O'Flaherty
Anyway, if the last cite is 1858, then it's beyond uncommon.

Maybe. However, sometimes the OEDl has a last cite of 1858 because
that's when Mr. Murray and his elves did their work.

I notice that Merriam-Webster uses 1755 as its cutoff point for
"obsolete".

Anyway, it's alive and well on the Web:

"purport that" 13,100
"purports that" 18,000

Examples:

the movie purports that a corporation has a "personality"

Taubman purports that practicing exercises often only reinforces
bad or incorrect habits.

the research which purports that prisoner education lowers
recidivism rates

including naïve thinking that purports that we are not really
Americans

[John O'Flaherty]

Post by Donna Richoux
[re "purport that"]

Post by John O'Flaherty
Anyway, if the last cite is 1858, then it's beyond uncommon.

Maybe. However, sometimes the OEDl has a last cite of 1858 because
that's when Mr. Murray and his elves did their work.
I notice that Merriam-Webster uses 1755 as its cutoff point for
"obsolete".
"purport that" 13,100
"purports that" 18,000
the movie purports that a corporation has a "personality"
Taubman purports that practicing exercises often only reinforces
bad or incorrect habits.
the research which purports that prisoner education lowers
recidivism rates
including naïve thinking that purports that we are not really
Americans

I guess I was wrong. I see on rereading the definition in MW that the
meaning given under 'claim' is equivalent to 'say', although their
example still used a 'to (verb)' complement.

--
john

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Carter Crain
This sentence does not sound right but I am not sure what is wrong with it.
"I am deeply concerned . . . by . . . Williams' Nov. 2 editorial, "The
Drugging of America's Children," which purports that we are overmedicating
our children . . . "
Does "purports that" mean "contends that?"
I know that an editorial can purport to say something or other. But that is
not the sense of this sentence.

I'm not sure that one can purort to say anything. One can purport to be
something.

But in that sentence, surely "says that" would do -- but the writer probably
wanted something with more syllables, and picked the wrong word.