What does this sentence mean?
Abner Doubleday WAS GIVEN CREDIT this invention.
More context is needed. But I think Abner Doubleday WAS GIVEN CREDITfor this invention. Maybe credit means money given.
yes dear davy. i didn't type it correctly.the correct sentence is here.
abner Doubleday was given credit for this invention.
Perhaps,it means "was given award".Originally Posted by matilda
Consider the following examples:
Employee complaining to his friend:
I did all the work on the project, but my boss got all the credit.
That means, people thought that his boss had done the project himself,
or that they gave him recognition, or praised him for the project
and the employee who had done the real work was not mentioned or
If you read any research papers, you can see that in some of them,
the professor's name is mentioned as a co-author, along with the
student researcher. In this case, the student and the professor
are sharing credit for the research paper. Or, you can
say they got "joint credit" for the research paper.
In case of Matilda's sentence, it means Abner Doubleday was recognized
as having invented whatever he invented (the sentence does not
tell us about it). Most likely it refers to baseball.
Thanks for correcting me Englishstudent.
I hope Englishstudent was saying that he was recognised/praised for what he(Abner) has invented.
that meaning was not implied in my earlier response.
I only specified the meaning of "credit" as "recognized".
Without context, or additional information, it is not
possible to come to the conclusion that he was or was not
the inventor of baseball.
As I understand it (I could be wrong, and if so, I hope
someone would correct me), Doubleday did not claim that
he invented baseball. But, people gave him credit/recognition
for the invention.
Consider another example:
As you may know, Marconi is considered to be the inventor of radio.
In other words, Marconi WAS GIVEN CREDIT for this invention (radio).
At least that is what we learned in school (just because
that is what was in the textbook). But it turns out there are
other people who should have got credit. Nicola Tesla had
actually demonstrated wireless communication in 1893, and had
written articles describing his apparatus in detail. In 1895, Marconi
presented his radio device in London and claimed it as his invention,
even though his device resembled that of Tesla.
Two other people, the Russian scientist Alexander Popov and
the Indian scientist Jagdish Chandra Bose also demonstrated
application of electromagnetic waves. There are many people
who had done work in this area (of wireless communication and
electromagnetic waves), and there are other contenders than those
mentioned above for the 'inventor' claim. Supporters/admirers of
each scientist feel that their scientist should get the credit as inventor of radio.
Regardless of who actually invented the radio, most textbooks
say that Marconi was the inventor. In other words, Marconi was
given credit for the invention of radio. But, suppose now
people decide that Nicola Tesla did it ealier than Marconi,
and therefore, he is the real inventor, then we would say
"Earlier Marconi was given the credit for this invention,
but now Tesla is given the credit for it."
I am sorry if I confused you with this convoluted example, but I am trying
to say that the words "was given the credit for this invention"
don't tell us if that person actually invented it or not. We need
additional details to come to that conclusion. "Was given the
credit for this invention" simply tells us that people recognize/accept
that person to be the inventor.