Talk:Time immemorial

Untitled

Second point: "The Court of Chivalry is said to have defined the period before 1066 as "time immemorial" for the purposes of heraldry." The "is said to have" sounds like classic weasel wording to me. 68.39.174.238 17:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Wrong; 'is said to have' is in this context used because this is the generally ASSUMED date, but the exact one is not known because it was never explicitly specified as such. If you had bothered to search any references on the subject of English heraldic law, you would have discovered this. 65.13.28.4 19:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Then put those references in the article!

now, now children.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark wounds (talk • contribs) 15:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Oldest Joke

Is the phrase "time immemorial" a direct translation of the oldest joke? The source provided is unclear on this point. If it is not a direct translation (or cannot be reliably established as such), it should be removed from the article. Neitherday (talk) 02:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. If the Sumerians had an analogous phrase, that would be marginally interesting; the fact that they used it in this particular joke would not be. jnestorius^(talk)

abandoning use of legal memory

The article states that 'In 1832, the plan of dating legal memory from a fixed time was abandoned'. I assume this refers the the Prescription Act. However that didn't abolish the use of the use 1189 in establishing rights, it simply added a new way; the 20 year rule mentioned. It is still possible to use prescription, as 20 years of use gives rise to the presumption of use since time immemorial. Although this is easily defeated, it is still a possibility. 94.192.114.228 (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The PA pertains specifically to land tenure. I presume 6 July 1189 (Richard I, H. of Plantagenet) is a Julian date. THis date must be in the constitution. The English const. (not Scotland) is largely not codified, and no referendum is required to amend it. Legal memory pertains to laws passed (by whom?) and precedence cases. The Bill of Rights (1689) codifies a lot of things, and will override any previous gentleman's agreements. The statue of 1290 fixes the 1189 as the earliest date for material that may be used in judicial argument. The courts were not established until Henry II, a few years beforehand.220.240.254.153 (talk) 23:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I Always Wondered About That.

I've always noticed the few cases in the English language where the adjective is a post-modifier, and found them peculiar. I'd like to see a source on the claim regarding Norman French influence, but until then, here are some other examples I've always noticed:

• heir apparent
• (noun, e.g. dancer) extraordinaire
• mark (version number, e.g. XII)
• (type, e.g. M) (number, e.g. 16) as in the M16 rifle
• version (version number, e.g. 2.0)

71.236.136.184 (talk) 07:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind. I found a page for this, though it only currently has one source: Post-positive adjective. 71.236.136.184 (talk) 18:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

1066?

"The Court of Chivalry is said to have defined the period before 1066 as time immemorial for the purposes of heraldry." This is a most peculiar statement as there was no heraldry before 1066 and there are no current arms that date from that time. Kiltpin (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)