If possible, I would like to revise my previous definition after giving it a little more thought. Previously, I had said: "My definition of a counterfeit (noun) is a fake coin or piece of currency designed to deceive an unknowing party into thinking it's genuine." I think I need to be a little more broad and say: My definition of a counterfeit (noun) is a fake (of anything) designed to deceive an unknowing party into thinking it's genuine.
From Oxford...as a noun... "a fraudulent imitation of something else; a forgery." e.g. Fraudulent Easter Bunny (hoping to get extra snackies)...
There is no such thing as a counterfeit anything, in and of itself. As you can see from the definition it is not a noun. As has been pointed out, the “crime” has two parts. Act and intent. So a thing can’t be a counterfeit according to my 5th grade English teacher. And it can’t be used as a noun with any legal specificity so again. Not a thing.
Great analysis. I’ll make sure to look your posts up the next time I want insightful commentary on a subject.
Counterfeit can also be a verb based on context. That is why I specified. "To counterfeit" would be the act of counterfeiting. @Insider's posted definition would be a verb. #GammerPolice
I didn’t bring up verb because that obviously takes action. The point is a thing siting on my desk is not counterfeit even if it was not made by Gucci or the US Mint. It takes some action to make it counterfeit.
This is wrong. Even Merriam-Webster says the word can be a verb, adjective, or noun (thing). It takes some action to pass gas, too. But after that action has been taken, it's just a fart - a noun.
I don’t understand what you are saying. If I have a Rolex bought off the street corner in NYC for $10 on my desk...I have a counterfeit sitting on my desk.
I think I may have posted these thoughts in the wrong thread, so I'll rectumfy that error. ***************** At the risk of pïssing off some esteemed members of CT, and from the sheer amount of butthurt I am seeing surrounding the man and his work, I'm getting the feeling that SOMEONE or multiple SOMEONE'S bought one of Carr's fantasy coin creations without fully informing themselves of the history and attributes of said creation. If the esteemed member was deceived, it does not appear that the creator of the piece did the deceiving, and perhaps the purchaser was a bit too eager in the purchase. Blaming the creator of the piece is similar to blaming GM for the drunk who hit your car because he was driving a GM. It is incumbent upon all of us to know what we are purchasing and not get too excited about discovering a potential "hitherto unknown rarity" without doing some "due diligence." If any deceit was perpetrated, look to the secondary seller of said creation, not to the creator. Zoid out . . . .
It can be used as a verb but a coin can’t be a verb anymore than a coin can be an adjective and as a noun it’s still it’s counterfeit unless something is done with it. Same goes for the fart. Trying doing that on a cops burger right before you serve it to them an see how innocuous it is. That’s the whole point of replicas as art. It can be a replica all by itself just not counterfeit. You don’t have to like it but thems the rules of English and Logic.