inconsequential pieces

The following is from Pilate: The Biography of an Invented Man by Ann Wroe. It is part of a small section that briefly describes a page-fragment of a Coptic manuscript that was donated to the Ashmolean Museum in the late 19th century. The page was apparently written in columns and the text I am reading gives the translation of a part of the fragment. Describing it, Wroe writes:(Trevithick is the British naval officer who gave the fragment to the person who donated it to the Ashmolean.)

I am wondering about the use of "inconsequential". Can it mean "small and of little importance" or is there some other probable meaning here?

There is no further description of the fragment. The "story" referred to is a part of the Coptic hagiographic legend about Pontius Pilate. The translation in this book appears to be complete and sequential. It is written in short lines of unequal length, a bit like modern poetry.

How should I understand "inconsequential pieces"?

I'm thinking the author might be using the -ial form of inconsequent: not connected or following logically. I share your apparent concern that they are of little importance.

You've put your finger exactly on my question. I wasn't sure that "the -ial form of inconsequent" exists, and still less sure if it applies here.

Inconsequential means unimportant. I think the word the person is looking for is non-sequential, which means not following on from each other.

At the time she wrote Pilate, Ann Wroe was the American editor of The Economist. Her background includes a doctorate in medieval history from Oxford. I think it unlikely that she made that kind of error, TT. I think she used exactly the word she meant to use, which is why I am trying to understand it.

I take your point, Nunty. If it doesn't mean non-sequential, I can't see how she could justify the even: after all she's been talking about the fragmented nature of the writing.

P.S. I know some people with doctorates in History from Oxford who could make such a mistake, so I wouldn't count on it. I find modern editors often amazingly lax.

I've given this question the benefit of a train ride and have come to two conclusions:

1. Inconsequential certainly exists, perhaps not in all dictionaries, but if Dictionary.com has it you know it's in the language and some writer is going to use it either for variety or because they're thinking "inconsequent" and need the -ial for the particular use.

2. I guess I just don't see "tiny" and "inconsequential" being used in the same short phrase to mean about the same thing -- although I concede the first is size and the second can be either size or value. Still, pretty close.

So I'm inclined to think, with only surmise as my companion, that the author might be expressing surprise that even the "tiniest part of the story" ("Trevithick's page itself") had no logical sequence. Like an atom, you would expect the smallest part to be indivisible, to have some integrity or rationality or consistency of its own --which it didn't. So it was a surprise.

It might be a bigger surprise if I'm even close. It's easy to make up theories, harder to prove them. So maybe this is just food for thought... or inconsequential mutterings. 👁 Smile :)

Copyright said:

I've given this question the benefit of a train ride and have come to two conclusions:

1. Inconsequential certainly exists, perhaps not in all dictionaries, but if Dictionary.com has it you know it's in the language and some writer is going to use it either for variety or because they're thinking "inconsequent" and need the -ial for the particular use.

[...] 👁 Smile :)

I'm a bit mystified by this part of Copyright's post.

Inconsequential is a common word in BE to mean trifling, of no consequence (importance).

If it is rare in AE, we need to remember that Ms Wroe has not only a doctorate but a degree from Oxford, so she will be familiar with BE use of the word.

I'm amused to find I've been reading her for ages. She's an obituaries editor of the Economist, and her choice of subject is often idiosyncratic: she wrote one obituary on a recently deceased African Grey Parrot.

I'm afraid I still think it's quite easy for a writer, even a highly educated one, to gloss one word for another similar in this way, particularly if writing quickly. Maybe she relies too much on her editor.

Thomas Tompion said:

I'm a bit mystified by this part of Copyright's post.

Inconsequential is a common word in BE to mean trifling, of no consequence (importance).

Dictionary.com
inconsequential: 2. inconsequent; illogical.
inconsequent: 2. characterized by lack of logical sequence; illogical; inconsecutive: inconsequent reasoning.

If a word exists, it will be used, especially by an academic.

I'm afraid I still think it's quite easy for a writer, even a highly educated one, to gloss one word for another similar in this way, particularly if writing quickly. Maybe she relies too much on her editor.

Certainly possible.

Thomas Tompion said:

I still think it's quite easy for a writer, even a highly educated one, to gloss one word for another similar in this way, particularly if writing quickly

I subscribe to that too.

Copyright said:

1. Inconsequential certainly exists, perhaps not in all dictionaries, but if Dictionary.com has it you know it's in the language and some writer is going to use it either for variety or because they're thinking "inconsequent" and need the -ial for the particular use.

Hi Thomas... I've just figured out your justifiable mystification. I meant this word appeared with its rather rarer secondary definition which I quote elsewhere. Sorry for the confusion.

Thank you for your thoughts, gentlemen. I'll write the author (with as much tact as I can muster) and if she replies, I'll post it here.

Nunty said:

I'll write the author

Nunty, please don't mention our names, or WordReference, or internet language forums👁 Big Grin :D

ewie said:

Nunty, please don't mention our names, or WordReference, or internet language forums👁 Big Grin :D

Sure you can! Just tell her we think she's written gobbledegook!! That'll really get her on your side!!!

Sorry...👁 Eek! :o

I really would like to know what she says....