[Vocabulary] the previously/currently/X adj+noun

[LevyLi]

Could someone help to confirm the following definition:
(1) a previously happy family: a family was happy, but is not now.
(2) a currently happy family: a family is happy now.

(3) a happy family: a family is happy now.

(i) a previously broken cup: a cup was broken, but is mended now.
(ii) a currently broekn cup: a cup is broken now.
(iii) a broken cup: a cup is borken now.

(a) a previously prepared statement: a statement was prepared, but is unprepared now?:?:
(b) a currently prepared statement: a statement is prepared now.
(c) a prepared statement: a statement is prepared now.

Thank you!​

​

​

 

[emsr2d2]

Could someone help to confirm the following definitions:

(1) a previously happy family: a family that was happy, but is not now.
(2) a currently happy family: a family that is happy now.

(3) a happy family: a family that is happy now.

(i) a previously broken cup: a cup that was broken, but is mended now.
(ii) a currently broken cup: a cup that is broken now.
(iii) a broken cup: a cup that is broken now.

(a) a previously prepared statement: a statement that was prepared, but is unprepared now?
(b) a currently prepared statement: a statement is prepared now.
(c) a prepared statement: a statement is prepared now.

[STRIKE]Thank you![/STRIKE] Unnecessary. Thank us later, by clicking on the "Thank" button on helpful responses.​

​

1 and 2 mean what you think. 3 depends on the context and time period of the sentence in which it appears. 1 and 3 are natural. 2 is not.

i and ii mean what you think. i is natural. ii is not. iii depends on the context and time period of the sentence in which it appears.

a means that it was written (prepared) in the past. It has nothing to do with being prepared or unprepared. b is unnatural. c is OK but would normally be a "pre-prepared statement". ​

​

 

[LevyLi]

1 and 2 mean what you think. 3 depends on the context and time period of the sentence in which it appears. 1 and 3 are natural. 2 is not.

i and ii mean what you think. i is natural. ii is not. iii depends on the context and time period of the sentence in which it appears.

a means that it was written (prepared) in the past. It has nothing to do with being prepared or unprepared. b is unnatural. c is OK but would normally be a "pre-prepared statement".

In an agenda, the sentences "the chairman reads out a prepared statement" and "the

chairman reads out a previously prepared statement" have the same meaning?​

In my understanding, preparation was made before being read out.
The two sentences are the same.

 

[emsr2d2]

In an agenda, do the sentences "The chairman reads out a prepared statement" and "The chairman reads out a previously prepared statement" have the same meaning?
In my understanding, the [STRIKE]preparation[/STRIKE] statement was [STRIKE]made[/STRIKE] prepared before being read out.
The two sentences are the same.

Not only do both sentences mean the same, they both include unnecessary words. It suffices to say "The chairman reads out a statement". The fact that he is reading it out means that it has already been written down, so it must have been prepared in advance.

 

[LevyLi]

1 and 2 mean what you think. 3 depends on the context and time period of the sentence in which it appears. 1 and 3 are natural. 2 is not.

i and ii mean what you think. i is natural. ii is not. iii depends on the context and time period of the sentence in which it appears.

a means that it was written (prepared) in the past. It has nothing to do with being prepared or unprepared. b is unnatural. c is OK but would normally be a "pre-prepared statement". ​

​

Why can't a previously broken cup mean a cup that was broken and is still broken?

 

[emsr2d2]

It wouldn't make sense to call a broken cup a "previously broken cup". It's obvious that, at some point, it was an unbroken cup so for it now to be a broken cup, the breaking must have happened in the past. That makes "previously" unnecessary.

 

[GoesStation]

It wouldn't make sense to call a broken cup a "previously broken cup". It's obvious that, at some point, it was an unbroken cup so for it now to be a broken cup, the breaking must have happened in the past. That makes "previously" unnecessary.

A cup which has been repaired after being broken was, at a stretch, "previously broken". It's hard to imagine someone actually using the phrase though.

 

[jutfrank]

I understand that the point of your question is to get at the logic (or lack thereof) of the combination previously prepared.

I agree with you—it's illogical to say that, so don't say it. You just have to say a prepared statement. The word 'prepared' has the sense of 'previously' already contained within its core sense.

(Note: I've spent hours with other teachers at my school discussing this exact point. The vast majority agree with me. We also agree that pre-prepared is no better—in fact, it's worse!)

 

[LevyLi]

A cup which has been repaired after being broken was, at a stretch, "previously broken". It's hard to imagine someone actually using the phrase though.

I agree with you!
The following examples are cited from https://www.lexico.com/definition/previously
‘Their results confirm the suspicion that it is a previously unknown coronavirus.’
‘When a diagnosis is eventually reached, it is on the basis of a previously unknown mutation.'
I want to know whether "previously" is redundant.
If not, what is its function?

​

 

[LevyLi]

I understand that the point of your question is to get at the logic (or lack thereof) of the combination previously prepared.

I agree with you—it's illogical to say that, so don't say it. You just have to say a prepared statement. The word 'prepared' has the sense of 'previously' already contained within its core sense.

(Note: I've spent hours with other teachers at my school discussing this exact point. The vast majority agree with me. We also agree that pre-prepared is no better—in fact, it's worse!)

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Tahoma,Calibri,Geneva,sans-serif]For each Plaintiff in a currently filed (non-Bellwether) case that is part of the
MDL as of the date of Second Amended Case Management Order No. 4, the Defendants shall
comply with the following schedule:
[/FONT].[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Tahoma,Calibri,Geneva,sans-serif]https://www.insd.uscourts.gov/sites/insd/files/MDL%202570%203rd%20Amended%20Case%20Mgmt%20Order%204.pdf[FONT=arial,sans-serif]
I don't know how to interpret the "currently filed case"?
It is a case which is currently filed:-(?
or a case which is currently being filed?
In my understanding, filing was made before, so I am confused.
[/FONT][/FONT]​

 

[jutfrank]

I agree with you!
The following examples are cited from https://www.lexico.com/definition/previously
‘Their results confirm the suspicion that it is a previously unknown coronavirus.’
‘When a diagnosis is eventually reached, it is on the basis of a previously unknown mutation.'
I want to know whether "previously" is redundant.
If not, what is its function?

No, it isn't redundant there.

The point is that the coronavirus/mutation is not unknown at the time of speaking.

 

[jutfrank]

For each Plaintiff in a currently filed (non-Bellwether) case that is part of the
MDL as of the date of Second Amended Case Management Order No. 4, the Defendants shall
comply with the following schedule:
.https://www.insd.uscourts.gov/sites/insd/files/MDL%202570%203rd%20Amended%20Case%20Mgmt%20Order%204.pdf
I don't know how to interpret the "currently filed case"?
It is a case which is currently filed:-(?
or a case which is currently being filed?
In my understanding, filing was made before, so I am confused.
​

The key to understanding this is to think of filed as an adjective describing a present state. Your confusion seems to be caused by incorrectly reading filed as a verb denoting a past action.

 

[LevyLi]

The key to understanding this is to think of filed as an adjective describing a present state. Your confusion seems to be caused by incorrectly reading filed as a verb denoting a past action.

Yes!
I really don't identify the participle positioned before a noun is an adjective describing a present state or a passive voice verb denoting a past action?
For example, filed denotes the state of being filed or the action of being filed.
In my previous post, the prepared denotes the action of being prepared, not the state of being prepared. (because someone told the currently prepared statement is unnatural)

 

[GoesStation]

‘Their results confirm the suspicion that it is a previously unknown coronavirus.’
‘When a diagnosis is eventually reached, it is on the basis of a previously unknown mutation.'
I want to know whether "previously" is redundant.
If not, what is its function?

It's there for a reason, but unknown may not be the best word. I think the writer meant previously unnoticed or undetected.

 

[LevyLi]

It's there for a reason, but unknown may not be the best word. I think the writer meant previously unnoticed or undetected.

https://news.uchicago.edu/story/cosmochemist-discovers-potential-solution-meteorite-mystery
In the website, I read two words "the previously".

One problem concerns the processes needed to obtain the high, post-condensation temperatures necessary to heat the previously condensed solid silicates into chondrule droplets.
At the temperature at which iron becomes oxidized in the solar nebula, though, it diffuses too slowly into the previously formed magnesium silicates, such as olivine, to give the iron concentrations seen in the olivine of chondrules.
I think the previously is used to indicate (1) the solid silicate is not condensed now and is in the droplet form, and (2) the magnesium silicate is in the chondrule form.

Is it right?​

​

​