To begin, I have already checked several dictionaries for definitions, such as the one below, from Oxford Living Dictionaries.

secede verb [no object] Withdraw formally from membership of a federal union, an alliance, or a political or religious organization.

'the kingdom of Belgium seceded from the Netherlands in 1830'

‘The only way to prevent this would be to secede from the Union.’

‘If Vermont or Southern California were to secede, a lot of us would join them.’

‘Conversely, a claim of a right to secede from a repressive dictatorship may be regarded as legitimate.’

I found this line in an article today, and wonder whether I am simply missing the intended meaning of the usage. The sentence is from is Trump applauded North Korea's leader after floating the possibility of a 'major, major' conflict in the region, an article on the Business Insider website.

"As the youngest son of Kim Jong Il — the previous leader who died from a heart attack in 2011 — Jong Un seceded his father's place after being heralded as "a great person born of heaven," according to North Korea's state-run media."

Can someone explain whether or not the word 'seceded' is used correctly here? If it is used correctly, an explanation would be very much appreciated.

  • 7
    The word for what Kim Jong Un did is succeed to, not secede. – Peter Shor Apr 29 '17 at 17:34
  • Ah, it hadn't occurred to me that they might have switched two similar sounding words. Thank you!! – badpanda Apr 29 '17 at 18:10
  • 1
    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is predicated on a misspelling. – Edwin Ashworth Apr 29 '17 at 22:04
  • 1
    The question can be closed as off topic since the OP has already understood the error made in the news report. I also consider it a good choice for migration to ELL as an example of 'similar words with very different meanings' for new learners of English. – English Student Apr 30 '17 at 16:35
  • As further evidence that Business Insider doesn't employ copy editors, I note that the absence of a comma after "previous leader" changes the meaning of that parenthetical, and that Jong Un did not "succeed his father's place"—he "succeeded his father." Furthermore, Jong Un didn't succeed "as the youngest son," which implies that North Korea's ruling family has a tradition that the youngest son becomes leader upon his father's death; rather Jong Un took control despite being Jong Il's youngest son. The seceded/succeeded error isn't out of place with these other infelicities. – Sven Yargs Apr 30 '17 at 17:19

Common sense would suggest an error in using 'secede'; succeeded his father is the most likely phrase, as in "the prince succeeded the king after his demise. "

| improve this answer | |
  • Obvious misspellings do not provide suitable questions for a site aimed at linguists. Answering questions containing them adds an undesirable cachet. – Edwin Ashworth Apr 29 '17 at 22:06
  • Obvious misspellings do not provide suitable questions for a site aimed at linguists. Answering questions containing them adds an undesirable cachet. – Edwin Ashworth 17 hours ago -- Therefore such questions are best migrated to ELL where they can be useful examples for new learners, in my humble opinion. Please read my meta question on this topic and provide your valuable comments. english.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10215/… – English Student Apr 30 '17 at 16:09
  • @Edwin Ashworth - I'd just like to point out that this is most likely a misuse of the word, not a misspelling. I find it hard to believe that someone would spell 'succeed' 'secede.' – badpanda May 1 '17 at 19:20
  • @badpanda If electronic transcription has been involved, one could argue either way. Whatever; the question is predicated on obvious infelicity of one kind or another. – Edwin Ashworth May 1 '17 at 20:04

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.