# realign yourself with somebody



## raymondaliasapollyon

Hi,

The Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English defines _realign yourself with somebody_ in the following way. Does the definition properly reflect the meaning of the example sentence?

realign yourself with somebody: to begin to support and work together with someone again: 

They have tried to realign themselves with the communists.

I'd appreciate your help.


----------



## heypresto

I don't think I've ever used the word, but, without any _context_, it seems to make some sense in the sentence.

But without knowing who 'they' are, and what exactly they are doing, I can't be entirely sure.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Every other dictionary defines the phrase differently from Longman:

Oxford:
realign yourself (with somebody/something): to change your opinions, policies, etc. so that they are the same as those of another person, group, etc.

The rebel MPs have realigned themselves with the opposition party.

Cambridge:
realign yourself (with sb/sth):  to change your ideas or policies so that they are the same as those of another person or group:

Several politicians left the party and realigned themselves with the opposition.


----------



## heypresto

You can't expect every dictionary to define words in exactly the same way. I can't see any problematic conflict here.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

For the example sentence, the Longman definition would require it to mean they (whoever they are) had previously worked with the communists, whereas other dictionaries don't share that presumption.

Longman:
realign yourself with somebody: to begin to support and work together with someone *again*:


----------



## PaulQ

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Does the definition properly reflect the meaning of the example sentence?





heypresto said:


> I can't see any problematic conflict here.



The base meaning of "realign" is to bring into alignment again - to cause two (or more) objects to lie or travel in the same line (or parallel).

Please note that "align" is a more recent spelling of "aline". Aline was a verb meaning "to bring into a line."


----------



## heypresto

You're looking for differences where there aren't any.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

I'm just reading the definitions and making logical inference.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

If we look at the definition of New Oxford American Dictionary, the sense of "again" is not included:

(realign oneself with) change one's position or attitude with regard to (a person, organization, or cause): 

He wished to realign himself with Bagehot's more pessimistic position.


----------



## PaulQ

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> I'm just reading the definitions and making logical inference.


Please see the derivation at #6 and align | Search Online Etymology Dictionary - your inferences are illogical.


raymondaliasapollyon said:


> If we look at the definition of New Oxford American Dictionary,


If we look at any dictionary, we must know how to use that dictionary.


raymondaliasapollyon said:


> He wished to realign himself with Bagehot's more pessimistic position.


From which we can logically conclude that, at one time, his position had been that of Bagehot.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

There is something known as etymological fallacy. Whether the word has parts that historically means something does not mean the word should necessarily have that meaning now.


----------



## grassy

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Whether *Just because* the word has parts that historically mean*t* something does not mean the word should necessarily have that meaning now.


The fallacy would be if someone argued against the usual dictionary definition of the word and provided the word's etymology to support their argument. I can't see anyone doing that in this thread.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

grassy said:


> The fallacy would be if someone argued against the usual dictionary definition of the word and provided the word's etymology to support their argument. I can't see anyone doing that in this thread.



I'd take it more broadly to include cases where someone argues for a certain definition on the basis of the historical meanings of its parts.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Let's say John has decided to work with Peter *again*.  On the basis of the boldfaced word, we can infer he has worked with Peter previously, can't we?

By the same reasoning, "They have tried to realign themselves with the communists" would entail they previously worked with the communists if we adopted Longman's definition: to begin to support and work together with someone *again*.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Here's a definition of etymological fallacy by P. H. Matthews:

The notion that the ‘true’ meaning of a word is the one to be expected from its etymology. E.g. _literature _is from the word in Latin for a letter of the alphabet (_litera_): therefore, a pedant might argue, it is incorrect to apply it to compositions transmitted orally and not written.


----------



## heypresto

The 're' in '_re_align' suggests aligning _again_. They were aligned at some point in the past, and now they are aligned _again_.


----------



## Edinburgher

heypresto said:


> The 're' in '_re_align' suggests aligning _again_.


Exactly.  If they had never been aligned before, you might say that now they *aligned* with them, not that they *re-aligned*.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

The New Oxford American dictionary has different definitions of "realign" and "realign oneself with":
The meaning of re- is echoed by "former" in the definition of "realign."

realign:
v. [trans.] change or restore to a *different *or *former *position or state: 
They worked to relieve his shoulder pain and realign the joint;the president realigned his government to reflect the balance of parties.  

But it is not found in the definition of "realign oneself with."

(realign oneself with) change one's position or attitude with regard to (a person, organization, or cause): 
He wished to realign himself with Bagehot's more pessimistic position.

Could Oxford and Cambridge be wrong?


----------



## Edinburgher

Interesting.  I suppose the "re-" can also be understood to mean not that you align again with a former position, but that, having first been aligned in one particular direction, you then change *your own* alignment, you re-align *yourself* in a new direction.  It's similar to adjusting something (such as the volume control on an amplifier) and then adjusting it again ("readjusting it") to a different setting later.

Notice also that the first definition says "different *or* former", so that it doesn't necessarily have to be former.


----------



## heypresto

No. Why are you trying to catch these dictionaries out by setting them against each other?

You can't expect any dictionary to list _every _word with _every _possible meaning in _every _possible sentence or context.

There is no conflict between any of these dictionary definitions. 

Are you just picking random words and checking to see if all the dictionaries define them in exactly the same way, or are you trying to write a sentence, and want to make sure you're using 'realign' correctly? If so, what is the sentence?


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Edinburgher said:


> Notice also that the first definition says "different *or* former", so that it doesn't necessarily have to be former.



Yes, I find Oxford's definition more inclusive than Longman's.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

heypresto said:


> No. Why are you trying to catch these dictionaries out by setting them against each other?
> 
> You can't expect any dictionary to list _every _word with _every _possible meaning in _every _possible sentence or context.
> 
> There is no conflict between any of these dictionary definitions.
> 
> Are you just picking random words and checking to see if all the dictionaries define them in exactly the same way, or are you trying to write a sentence, and want to make sure you're using 'realign' correctly? If so, what is the sentence?



To study meanings seriously, I think it's necessary to engage in this kind of comparison. Consider Macmillan's definition for _realign_:

1
to change the position of something, especially in relation to the position of something else 
2
to change the way in which something such as a system or institution is organized 
3
if a country, organization etc realigns itself, it decides to support different ideas or groups 

Nothing about re-, or the sense it conveys, is in the set of definitions.  Like Oxford's, they are more inclusive than Longman's. 

realign (verb) definition and synonyms | Macmillan Dictionary


----------



## Edinburgher

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Nothing about re-, or the sense it conveys, is in the set of definitions.


But often it is not necessary to explicitly include the "again" sense in such definitions, because we already know that _re-_ means _again_.

Of course there are exceptions, so that _reduce_ and _repair_ don't mean to _duce_ or to _pair_ again.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

My point is Longman's definition is unduly narrow.


----------



## heypresto

It may be shorter or  narrower than the others, but it's correct. And if you had only looked the word up in Longman and used it in a sentence with that meaning, there wouldn't be any problem with it.

As I said above, you can't expect dictionaries to list every possible meaning in every possible context or sentence.

I fear you are just making things difficult for yourself, and seeing confusions and conflicts where there are none.

If you really don't approve of Longman, just use Oxford.


----------



## Edinburgher

Well, perhaps "unduly narrow" is a little strong.  "Insufficiently comprehensive" might be kinder.  Still, I suppose it's a valid criticism, and Longman is often criticized for various reasons by various people (and by one of our regulars in particular -- you know who you are) to the extent of earning itself the epithet "Wrongman".


----------



## lingobingo

Edinburgher said:


> … the "re-" can also be understood to mean not that you align again with a former position, but that, having first been aligned in one particular direction, you then change *your own* alignment, you re-align *yourself* in a new direction.




Realign means align again. How you describe it is largely a matter of perspective. You can either:
(a) realign yourself by switching allegiance and supporting a new cause (align yourself again)
(b) realign yourself with a cause you used to support (align with that cause again)


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

That begs the question of how to define _align _exactly. Only when a clear definition is available can the problem disappear.

It seems that re- simply implies change in this case.

Oxford has the following definitions for adjust and readjust:

adjust: to get used to a new situation by changing the way you behave and/or think 
readjust: to get used to a changed or new situation

There seems to be no practical difference between the two in the following. If you think the difference is huge, please let me know.

Children are highly adaptable—they just need time to *readjust*/*adjust*.


----------



## heypresto

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Only when a clear definition is available can the problem disappear.


There isn't a problem. You are making this far more difficult than it is.



raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Children are highly adaptable—they just need time to *readjust*/*adjust*.



You haven't given us any _context_. What children? Adjust/readjust to _what_?


----------



## lingobingo

align yourself with = line yourself up with = be on the same side as


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

heypresto said:


> There isn't a problem. You are making this far more difficult than it is.



If we view the definitions through a logical lens, we can recognize the problem. I find native speakers of any language seldom engage in this sort of mental gymnastics, so I wouldn't be surprised if you said there isn't a problem.



heypresto said:


> You haven't given us any _context_. What children? Adjust/readjust to _what_?



That's only an example sentence from Oxford. If context really matters, please demonstrate its relevance to this case.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

lingobingo said:


> align yourself with = line yourself up with = be on the same side as



Put "again" in the definition and an example sentence and we can see what difference "again" makes and why it presents a problem.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

An adequate definition should be neither too broad nor too narrow; it is expected to make the right cut, so to speak.

Longman's definition fails in this respect.


----------



## lingobingo

Longman is frequently criticised on this forum. But none of the dictionaries is perfect. (With the possible exception of the OED, which is largely about historical usage.)


----------



## heypresto

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> That's only an example sentence from Oxford. If context really matters, please demonstrate its relevance to this case.


The sentence is from _Oxford Learner's Dictionary_, and is given as an example of the use of 'readjust'.

It isn't a good example, in my opinion. It's talking about _all_ children, and suggesting that they need to readjust, but without saying what they need to readjust _to_.


----------



## PaulQ

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> There is something known as etymological fallacy.


  And there is something known as "using common sense" when applying critical thought. I gave you the link to an authoritative site: align | Search Online Etymology Dictionary


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

heypresto said:


> The sentence is from _Oxford Learner's Dictionary_, and is given as an example of the use of 'readjust'.
> 
> It isn't a good example, in my opinion. It's talking about _all_ children, and suggesting that they need to readjust, but without saying what they need to readjust _to_.



Consider Merriam-Webster's definition and example:

readjust: to change in order to work or do better in a new situation : to get used to a new situation or change

The children need time to _readjust to_ the new school,


----------



## PaulQ

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Put "again" in the definition and an example sentence and we can see what difference "again" makes and why it presents a problem.


You may wish to give your own definition.


----------



## heypresto

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> The children need time to _readjust to_ the new school,


That's a better example. 

This would also work with 'adjust'.


----------



## kentix

Edinburgher said:


> Interesting. I suppose the "re-" can also be understood to mean not that you align again with a former position, but that, having first been aligned in one particular direction, you then change *your own* alignment, you re-align *yourself* in a new direction.


 

It's frequently used this way in my experience. You aligned yourself originally and now you are doing it a second time. It doesn't have to match anyone else or go back to a previous position. You are changing your alignment away from your current position. You are repeating the act of aligning yourself.



raymondaliasapollyon said:


> readjust: to change in order to work or do better in a new situation : to get used to a new situation or change
> 
> The children need time to _readjust to_ the new school,


That example is wrong.

These work:

The children need time to _adjust to_ the(ir) new school.​​The children need time to _readjust,_ now that they are in a new school.​
They adjust to a specific, new school.
They readjust their overall life and outlook when a significant factor in that life changes.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

kentix said:


> It's frequently used this way in my experience. You aligned yourself originally and now you are doing it a second time. It doesn't have to match anyone else or go back to a previous position. You are changing your alignment away from your current position. You are repeating the act of aligning yourself.



Exactly. As someone pointed out, the meaning of re- has weakened in some verbs so it simply implies change.

Let's consider the following Cambridge example:

Several politicians left the party and realigned themselves with the opposition.

If we plug Longman's definition into it, the original meaning would be arguably lost:

Several politicians left the party and  began to support and work together with the opposition *again*.

But if "realign oneself with . . ." simply implies change, there is no need to include "again" in the definition, and I suppose "instead" would work better if the spot had to be filled.




kentix said:


> That example is wrong.
> 
> These work:
> 
> The children need time to _adjust to_ the(ir) new school.​​The children need time to _readjust,_ now that they are in a new school.​
> They adjust to a specific, new school.
> They readjust their overall life and outlook when a significant factor in that life changes.



The example is taken from Readjust - Definition for English-Language Learners from Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary.


----------



## kentix

It's wrong.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

PaulQ said:


> You may wish to give your own definition.



It's not that "again" cannot be incorporated into the definition of "realign oneself with." Doing that to Longman's definition would require one to revise it considerably. Something along the lines of "set one's alignment again" might work. The original definition is just too narrow.


----------

