Also in the news

[Corky]

1 hour ago, Buce said:

 

Yeah, all that waving must be exhausting.

 

It's amazing she's lived so long.

She's done (or had to do) a lot of travelling in her life. I'm not a Royalist at all (the noise around them pisses me off no end) but she's been in demand for a long time, no doubt too long, for somebody of her age.

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

2 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

The irony is just incredible.  Your use of language theory is insulting, I can agree that language evolves through use but it's just daft to keep claiming that because you understand a word one way, we all must accept that definition, that's what's arrogant. Has it not occurred to you that numerous people disputing your use of the word might point to the socially accepted use of it (and indeed the dictionary defined one) being different to yours?  Why do we even have dictionaries in your land of linguistic make-believe?  As to the claim that I've given you nothing tangible, just wow, this whole conversation started because I confronted your belief with the actual definition of the word, since then you've been shitting and strutting seven ways to Sunday.  

 

As I previously said, and should have listened to myself, there's no point engaging someone like you because you won't be reasoned with through the use of facts, just another soul lost to the war against information.  I think what's exhausting you is the mental gymnastics you're engaging in.

I have answered all of this already. Can you offer any rebuttal to the following 3 claims:

 

1. Dictionaries are generally descriptive, not prescriptive. 

 

2. Not all aspects or qualities of a word are included in a dictionary definition 

 

3. Appropriateness (or appropriacy) is a real concept in language

 

The reason I asked if you taught language or spoke any others is because you strike me as a bit of a blagger. You know enough to impress a layperson but you've actually got no real understanding of the subject at all. You could have disagreed with my assertion that "insurrection" did not apply here by showing how it has been used throughout history in a particular way. Perhaps you could have examined the difference between insurrection, insurgency (same root), rebellion, coup, uprising etc, remarking on the different interests of governments and commentators and how that might affect which word is opted for in a given context. You might even have argued that enough people have used the word "insurrection" regarding Jan 6th for the definition to be expanded to include what happened on that day. That could be an interesting argument. But your insistence that the conversation begins and ends with the dictionary definition is the biggest giveaway that you literally do not know what you're talking about. 

Edited 14 November 2021 by MarshallForEngland
Added "generally"

[Dunge]

7 minutes ago, MarshallForEngland said:

I have answered all of this already. Can you offer any rebuttal to the following 3 claims:

 

1. Dictionaries are generally descriptive, not prescriptive. 

 

2. Not all aspects or qualities of a word are included in a dictionary definition 

 

3. Appropriateness (or appropriacy) is a real concept in language

 

The reason I asked if you taught language or spoke any others is because you strike me as a bit of a blagger. You know enough to impress a layperson but you've actually got no real understanding of the subject at all. You could have disagreed with my assertion that "insurrection" did not apply here by showing how it has been used throughout history in a particular way. Perhaps you could have examined the difference between insurrection, insurgency (same root), rebellion, coup, uprising etc, remarking on the different interests of governments and commentators and how that might affect which word is opted for in a given context. You might even have argued that enough people have used the word "insurrection" regarding Jan 6th for the definition to be expanded to include what happened on that day. That could be an interesting argument. But your insistence that the conversation begins and ends with the dictionary definition is the biggest giveaway that you literally do not know what you're talking about. 

I always thought it was just when Paul Ince really, really liked something.

[leicsmac]

33 minutes ago, MarshallForEngland said:

I have answered all of this already. Can you offer any rebuttal to the following 3 claims:

 

1. Dictionaries are generally descriptive, not prescriptive. 

 

2. Not all aspects or qualities of a word are included in a dictionary definition 

 

3. Appropriateness (or appropriacy) is a real concept in language

 

 

This point addresses all three:

 

On 12/11/2021 at 21:06, leicsmac said:

An addendum to the above discussion:

 

Of course definitions of words and scientific laws come to that are all subjective because they are the direct invention of the human mind and agreed upon by the perception of a sufficient number of people.

 

However,  these definitions and laws exist for a reason in that if we don't use them, then everything becomes a giant talking shop and nothing actually gets done, which isn't a good survival strategy.

NB. I'll add that I would think every single person who went to DC that day went there wanting Trump installed as the President of the USA. I'll also wager that by the time this happened, the majority of them knew that there was no evidence proving that the election was rigged in a way to change the outcome.

 

So either they were duped by people who convinced them otherwise, or malicious in that they didn't care and wanted Trump in power in spite of the result of a free and fair election.

Edited 14 November 2021 by leicsmac

[Dunge]

Worth noting that there are two ways of looking at this word: One is of an ever-changing language where words can come to have different meaning over time (like how “wicked” came to mean “good and exciting”), but the more pertinent in this case is that words have a more fixed use and definition when used in a legal framework. Buce mentioned about two hundred pages back (or it feels like that) that they’ve fallen foul of the insurrection act, so I think it’s difficult to argue that that isn’t where they are legally.

 

But regardless, the whole argument I think glosses over they point here: That on that date, a bunch of easily-coerced people got coerced by an obvious narcissist into violently attacking a seat of government to combat the legitimate result of a democratic election. That they didn’t kill any politicians that day should be considered fortunate rather than deliberate. I don’t actually care which side of “insurrection” that falls - this was a terrible event for America that should be uniting the whole nation in determination to not let it happen again.

Edited 14 November 2021 by Dunge
Typo

[Carl the Llama]

1 hour ago, MarshallForEngland said:

I have answered all of this already. Can you offer any rebuttal to the following 3 claims:

 

1. Dictionaries are generally descriptive, not prescriptive. 

 

2. Not all aspects or qualities of a word are included in a dictionary definition 

 

3. Appropriateness (or appropriacy) is a real concept in language

 

The reason I asked if you taught language or spoke any others is because you strike me as a bit of a blagger. You know enough to impress a layperson but you've actually got no real understanding of the subject at all. You could have disagreed with my assertion that "insurrection" did not apply here by showing how it has been used throughout history in a particular way. Perhaps you could have examined the difference between insurrection, insurgency (same root), rebellion, coup, uprising etc, remarking on the different interests of governments and commentators and how that might affect which word is opted for in a given context. You might even have argued that enough people have used the word "insurrection" regarding Jan 6th for the definition to be expanded to include what happened on that day. That could be an interesting argument. But your insistence that the conversation begins and ends with the dictionary definition is the biggest giveaway that you literally do not know what you're talking about. 

You made the claim that it's not one. You are still yet to give any relevant evidence, just anecdotal 'this is how I personally remember things' and a list of things which you would define using the term but which doesn't actually feature the term itself. I have no need to offer more than what I've already given you because your burden of proof has very much failed to this point. 

 

I'm not going to bother with any more of your responses, there's nothing new to say and you're stuck in a loop of anecdotes and irrelevant side points while projecting your failings onto me. Have a good Sunday, or what's left of it.

Edited 14 November 2021 by Carl the Llama

[WigstonWanderer]

3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

It always has been.

 

The minority has always had an inordinate power over the majority over there, right from when there were slaveowners. Under even the standard process a vote in Wyoming is "worth" around 4x more in terms of voting "power" than one in Cali.

Yes but this stuff is much worse by modern day standards. The bad guys are apparently seizing control of the very election process. All the checks and balances are being systematically undermined. As poor as American democracy has always appeared to be, it looks set to pretty much disappear if this article is anything to go by. I think the rest of us should be very afraid.

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Yes but this stuff is much worse by modern day standards. The bad guys are apparently seizing control of the very election process. All the checks and balances are being systematically undermined. As poor as American democracy has always appeared to be, it looks set to pretty much disappear if this article is anything to go by. I think the rest of us should be very afraid.

All fair points, I really didn't mean to appear blasé about the matter - it's got the makings of a legislative coup d'etat, which would be terrible for a variety of reasons.

 

I think that the American system has never been all that representative at the highest level in the first place, but as you say, this would be a very scary new low.

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

2 hours ago, Dunge said:

Worth noting that there are two ways of looking at this word: One is of an ever-changing language where words can come to have different meaning over time (like how “wicked” came to mean “good and exciting”), but the more pertinent in this case is that words have a more fixed use and definition when used in a legal framework. Buce mentioned about two hundred pages back (or it feels like that) that they’ve fallen foul of the insurrection act, so I think it’s difficult to argue that that isn’t where they are legally.

 

But regardless, the whole argument I think glosses over they point here: That on that date, a bunch of easily-coerced people got coerced by an obvious narcissist into violently attacking a seat of government to combat the legitimate result of a democratic election. That they didn’t kill any politicians that day should be considered fortunate rather than deliberate. I don’t actually care which side of “insurrection” that falls - this was a terrible event for America that should be uniting the whole nation in determination to not let it happen again.

This is very interesting and shares some points with Buce's earlier post, so I'll respond to both. Both of you are actually introducing a third way of looking at a word, which is its definition in a legal context. It's not unusual for legal definitions to diverge significantly from their meaning in everyday use. We have some great examples in UK Law. The Theft Act of 1968 for example defines theft as "the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it". What this means is that if something doesn't satisfy all the requirements for what constitutes dishonesty, appropriation, property, title, and intention to deprive etc, it won't be legally classed as "theft" even though the average member of the public might call it theft. There were problems convicting people of driving away from fuel stations or leaving restaurants without paying on this definition, for example, even though I think the average person would have no problem calling that theft. That's why a separate offence was created in the Theft Act 1978 ("making off without payment"). 

 

"Assault" is another good example and probably a bit more relevant to the sort of situation we're talking about. The dictionary definition is "a physical attack". Most of us probably know the word as that but the Criminal Justice Act 1988 says that for an "assault" to have taken place, the victim may only have to "apprehend unlawful violence", meaning no physical contact is necessary. Most of us probably wouldn't use the word in everyday speech if there was no actual physical contact involved, but the legal definition and the layperson's definition have diverged. If somebody was guilty of "assault" because they caused somebody to "apprehend unlawful violence", would calling it an "assault" in everyday conversation be reasonable? I think I lean towards no. It's technically correct as per the legal definition, but doesn't match the standard dictionary definition (which Mr Llama insists is all we really need to care about here). In actual fact, I can imagine that one might do that if they wanted to exaggerate the heinousness of the guilty person's behaviour. "He assaulted me" sounds much more serious than "he threatened to use force against me", but they are both "assaults" in some way.

 

So I'm not sure if this legal direction is your strongest argument, because people may well have used "insurrection" in the way it has been used to describe what happened on January 6th but it might not meet the legal definition (as in the Theft example). Similarly, something could meet a narrow legal definition of "insurrection" but that doesn't necessarily say anything about its use in everyday speech (as in the Assault example).

 

As I said before, no "insurrection" charges have been brought against anybody as yet. I suspect there are many reasons why this is the case. I don't know much about the legal requirements for an "insurrection" to have taken place, but it could be that it has a high burden of proof or is quite complicated to prove in court. Or maybe it's because the other charges have more bang for your buck in terms of the maximum sentence.

 

 @Carl the Llama It is a shame you have decided to bail. The conversation could have taken many interesting directions. The way historians, governments, news media etc use words like insurrection, rebellion, uprising, insurgency, coup and the like is something worth talking about. So is the method by which communities of speakers acquire and assess competence. If you weren't so dismissive and unwilling to engage with the points I have been making, you might have learned something or come up with something resembling a point. You could have introduced the idea of linguistic protectionism in relation to your prescriptive view of dictionaries, for example, because your top-down view of language has been tried a few times throughout history, including in relation to the language you wrote in so fluently before. Incidentally, I wrote my dissertation back in the day on linguistic protectionism vs pluralism, comparing the French and English traditions, so I would have been very happy to go down that rabbit hole. Unfortunately, your stubborn refusal to say anything of any real substance has resulted in something of a dead-end. I shan't be telling my students about your proposed dictionary-first approach to linguistic competence but perhaps I'll show them this thread and they can make their own minds up.

Edited 14 November 2021 by MarshallForEngland
typos and clarity

[leicsmac]

15 minutes ago, MarshallForEngland said:

This is very interesting and shares some points with Buce's earlier post, so I'll respond to both. Both of you are actually introducing a third way of looking at a word, which is its definition in a legal context. It's not unusual for legal definitions to diverge significantly from their meaning in everyday use. We have some great examples in UK Law. The Theft Act of 1968 for example defines theft as "the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it". What this means is that if something doesn't satisfy all the requirements for what constitutes dishonesty, appropriation, property, title, and intention to deprive etc, it won't be legally classed as "theft" even though the average member of the public might call it theft. There were problems convicting people of driving away from fuel stations or leaving restaurants without paying on this definition, for example, even though I think the average person would have no problem calling that theft. That's why a separate offence was created in the Theft Act 1978 ("making off without payment"). 

 

"Assault" is another good example and probably a bit more relevant to the sort of situation we're talking about. The dictionary definition is "a physical attack". Most of us probably know the word as that but the Criminal Justice Act 1988 says that for an "assault" to have taken place, the victim may only have to "apprehend unlawful violence", meaning no physical contact is necessary. Most of us probably wouldn't use the word in everyday speech if there was no actual physical contact involved, but the legal definition and the layperson's definition have diverged. If somebody was guilty of "assault" because they caused somebody to "apprehend unlawful violence", would calling it an "assault" in everyday conversation be reasonable? I think I lean towards no. It's technically correct as per the legal definition, but doesn't match the standard dictionary definition (which Mr Llama insists is all we really need to care about here). In actual fact, I can imagine that one might do that if they wanted to exaggerate the heinousness of the guilty person's behaviour. "He assaulted me" sounds much more serious than "he threatened to use force against me", but they are both "assaults" in some way.

 

So I'm not sure if this legal direction is your strongest argument, because people may well have used "insurrection" in the way it has been used to describe what happened on January 6th but it might not meet the legal definition (as in the Theft example). Similarly, something could meet a narrow legal definition of "insurrection" but that doesn't necessarily say anything about its use in everyday speech (as in the Assault example).

 

As I said before, no "insurrection" charges have been brought against anybody as yet. I suspect there are many reasons why this is the case. I don't know much about the legal requirements for an "insurrection" to have taken place, but it could be that it has a high burden of proof or is quite complicated to prove in court. Or maybe it's because the other charges have more bang for your buck in terms of the maximum sentence.

 

 @Carl the Llama It is a shame you have decided to bail. The conversation could have taken many interesting directions. The way historians, governments, news media etc use words like insurrection, rebellion, uprising, insurgency, coup and the like is something worth talking about. So is the method by which communities of speakers acquire and assess competence. If you weren't so dismissive and unwilling to engage with the points I have been making, you might have learned something or come up with something resembling a point. You could have introduced the idea of linguistic protectionism in relation to your prescriptive view of dictionaries, for example, because your top-down view of language has been tried a few times throughout history, including in relation to the language you wrote in so fluently before. Incidentally, I wrote my dissertation back in the day on linguistic protectionism vs pluralism, comparing the French and English traditions, so I would have been very happy to go down that rabbit hole. Unfortunately, your stubborn refusal to say anything of any real substance has resulted in something of a dead-end. I shan't be telling my students about your proposed dictionary-first approach to linguistic competence but perhaps I'll show them this thread and they can make their own minds up.

Let's put the semantics aside for a moment then and and actually look at the incident itself.

 

Do you think the people involved in the events of January 6th were justifed in their actions, and why or why not?

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

Let's put the semantics aside for a moment then and and actually look at the incident itself.

 

Do you think the people involved in the events of January 6th were justifed in their actions, and why or why not?

In short, no, I don't. In my view it's not an acceptable thing to do. I also think strategically it was an appalling blunder and destroyed any hope of a reasonable discussion taking place. I can understand why some of them did it; many believed they were engaging in an act of civil disobedience in protest against what they perceived to be an unfair election plagued by voter fraud and conspiracies to nudge the result in a particular direction. But the place to make such claims is in the courts; many cases were brought and most of them as far as I know have been dismissed, and I wouldn't be surprised if the chances of success in some of those cases were reduced in some way by the events of January 6th. So I think in all senses it was the wrong thing to do.

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, MarshallForEngland said:

In short, no, I don't. In my view it's not an acceptable thing to do. I also think strategically it was an appalling blunder and destroyed any hope of a reasonable discussion taking place. I can understand why some of them did it; many believed they were engaging in an act of civil disobedience in protest against what they perceived to be an unfair election plagued by voter fraud and conspiracies to nudge the result in a particular direction. But the place to make such claims is in the courts; many cases were brought and most of them as far as I know have been dismissed, and I wouldn't be surprised if the chances of success in some of those cases were reduced in some way by the events of January 6th. So I think in all senses it was the wrong thing to do.

I see, thank you.

 

I was just trying to reconcile your viewpoint on the people involved with the current discussion regarding the terminology used to describe them.

[Guest SO1]

Anything going on in Washington DC is just a distraction from what is really occurring everyday on the streets  of cities and towns across the US. And the Guardian, NYTimes and the Washington Post as well as the rest of the mainstream media are the last places I'd look for any kind of truth. Propaganda 24/7 by both parties and the "deep state". Lots of talk about change but everything stays the same. The ruling class and its masters have the country well in hand.......until they don't.

[Dunge]

1 hour ago, MarshallForEngland said:

This is very interesting and shares some points with Buce's earlier post, so I'll respond to both. Both of you are actually introducing a third way of looking at a word, which is its definition in a legal context. It's not unusual for legal definitions to diverge significantly from their meaning in everyday use. We have some great examples in UK Law. The Theft Act of 1968 for example defines theft as "the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it". What this means is that if something doesn't satisfy all the requirements for what constitutes dishonesty, appropriation, property, title, and intention to deprive etc, it won't be legally classed as "theft" even though the average member of the public might call it theft. There were problems convicting people of driving away from fuel stations or leaving restaurants without paying on this definition, for example, even though I think the average person would have no problem calling that theft. That's why a separate offence was created in the Theft Act 1978 ("making off without payment"). 

 

"Assault" is another good example and probably a bit more relevant to the sort of situation we're talking about. The dictionary definition is "a physical attack". Most of us probably know the word as that but the Criminal Justice Act 1988 says that for an "assault" to have taken place, the victim may only have to "apprehend unlawful violence", meaning no physical contact is necessary. Most of us probably wouldn't use the word in everyday speech if there was no actual physical contact involved, but the legal definition and the layperson's definition have diverged. If somebody was guilty of "assault" because they caused somebody to "apprehend unlawful violence", would calling it an "assault" in everyday conversation be reasonable? I think I lean towards no. It's technically correct as per the legal definition, but doesn't match the standard dictionary definition (which Mr Llama insists is all we really need to care about here). In actual fact, I can imagine that one might do that if they wanted to exaggerate the heinousness of the guilty person's behaviour. "He assaulted me" sounds much more serious than "he threatened to use force against me", but they are both "assaults" in some way.

 

So I'm not sure if this legal direction is your strongest argument, because people may well have used "insurrection" in the way it has been used to describe what happened on January 6th but it might not meet the legal definition (as in the Theft example). Similarly, something could meet a narrow legal definition of "insurrection" but that doesn't necessarily say anything about its use in everyday speech (as in the Assault example).

 

As I said before, no "insurrection" charges have been brought against anybody as yet. I suspect there are many reasons why this is the case. I don't know much about the legal requirements for an "insurrection" to have taken place, but it could be that it has a high burden of proof or is quite complicated to prove in court. Or maybe it's because the other charges have more bang for your buck in terms of the maximum sentence.

 

 @Carl the Llama It is a shame you have decided to bail. The conversation could have taken many interesting directions. The way historians, governments, news media etc use words like insurrection, rebellion, uprising, insurgency, coup and the like is something worth talking about. So is the method by which communities of speakers acquire and assess competence. If you weren't so dismissive and unwilling to engage with the points I have been making, you might have learned something or come up with something resembling a point. You could have introduced the idea of linguistic protectionism in relation to your prescriptive view of dictionaries, for example, because your top-down view of language has been tried a few times throughout history, including in relation to the language you wrote in so fluently before. Incidentally, I wrote my dissertation back in the day on linguistic protectionism vs pluralism, comparing the French and English traditions, so I would have been very happy to go down that rabbit hole. Unfortunately, your stubborn refusal to say anything of any real substance has resulted in something of a dead-end. I shan't be telling my students about your proposed dictionary-first approach to linguistic competence but perhaps I'll show them this thread and they can make their own minds up.

You could use the exact same logic to argue that the sky isn’t “blue”.

 

If something needs changing or clarifying in a legal sense then that’s something for group agreement and lawmakers, not because someone’s uneasy with a word. And even if it is, the danger is that if we try to manoeuvre away from a word like “insurrection” then we mistakenly take the seriousness of the act with it. If we were to manoeuvre toward the word “coup” or “slaughter” for example, because that’s now how we want to define one of those words, I’m sure people on the other side of the argument would object massively because of potential legal implications. So is it not best to define it as it is, which really looks like it fits the dictionary definition that Carl offered?

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

21 minutes ago, Dunge said:

You could use the exact same logic to argue that the sky isn’t “blue”.

 

If something needs changing or clarifying in a legal sense then that’s something for group agreement and lawmakers, not because someone’s uneasy with a word. And even if it is, the danger is that if we try to manoeuvre away from a word like “insurrection” then we mistakenly take the seriousness of the act with it. If we were to manoeuvre toward the word “coup” or “slaughter” for example, because that’s now how we want to define one of those words, I’m sure people on the other side of the argument would object massively because of potential legal implications. So is it not best to define it as it is, which really looks like it fits the dictionary definition that Carl offered?

I'm really sorry but I have no idea what any of this means or how it relates to my post.

[Dunge]

17 minutes ago, MarshallForEngland said:

I'm really sorry but I have no idea what any of this means or how it relates to my post.

Because you’re arguing that you don’t want to call what happened an insurrection, despite it fitting both dictionary and legal definitions of such, because you have a different definition of the word, are you not?

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

45 minutes ago, Dunge said:

Because you’re arguing that you don’t want to call what happened an insurrection, despite it fitting both dictionary and legal definitions of such, because you have a different definition of the word, are you not?

No, that's not at all what I am arguing. I am saying that calling it an insurrection is itself the deviation from the norm. I didn't accept that appropriate usage can be determined by a dictionary and gave several examples of usages of words which are not fully captured by their dictionary definitions, and I also clearly outlined why a legal definition may also not be especially helpful, providing 2 very prominent examples of laws which contain definitions of words which differ massively from common usage. And by the way, it's not at all clear that it does in fact meet the legal definition of insurrection as you claim because no charges of insurrection have been brought against anyone for January 6th, let alone proven in court.

 

I honestly cannot understand why both of you keep go back to this simplistic, one-dimensional (and demonstrably false) idea that the dictionary is the start and end of all discussion on the subject. 

EDIT: Also want to add that I feel the same way about Trump's comment on a BLM Tweet:

Quote

‘If U.S. doesn’t give us what we want, then we will burn down this system and replace it.’ This is Treason, Sedition, Insurrection!

 

There were plenty of BLM riots at the time, federal buildings being attacked, shops being looted and people being assaulted (physically!), but I still believe those sorts of words are very charged and should be used very sparingly. 

Edited 14 November 2021 by MarshallForEngland

[Dunge]

17 minutes ago, MarshallForEngland said:

No, that's not at all what I am arguing. I am saying that calling it an insurrection is itself the deviation from the norm. I didn't accept that appropriate usage can be determined by a dictionary and gave several examples of usages of words which are not fully captured by their dictionary definitions, and I also clearly outlined why a legal definition may also not be especially helpful, providing 2 very prominent examples of laws which contain definitions of words which differ massively from common usage. And by the way, it's not at all clear that it does in fact meet the legal definition of insurrection as you claim because no charges of insurrection have been brought against anyone for January 6th, let alone proven in court.

 

I honestly cannot understand why both of you keep go back to this simplistic, one-dimensional (and demonstrably false) idea that the dictionary is the start and end of all discussion on the subject. 

EDIT: Also want to add that I feel the same way about Trump's comment on a BLM Tweet:

 

There were plenty of BLM riots at the time, federal buildings being attacked, shops being looted and people being assaulted (physically!), but I still believe those sorts of words are very charged and should be used very sparingly. 

Yes, and what I’m saying is that you can use the exact same logic to say that the sky isn’t blue, because you’re devaluing the word - any word - to the point of uselessness. And some point you’ve got to try to use a fitting description.

[Dunge]

Put it this way: A few years back, I got caught by a speed camera. Consider if I’d gone to court over it, represented myself and said to the judge: “What is speeding though? We know that words can change over time, even in a legal context, and my interpretation of the word is that I wasn’t going faster than I considered reasonable. Therefore the accusation as officially defined is irrelevant.”

 

Would the judge have not laughed in my face?

[Carl the Llama]

36 minutes ago, Dunge said:

Put it this way: A few years back, I got caught by a speed camera. Consider if I’d gone to court over it, represented myself and said to the judge: “What is speeding though? We know that words can change over time, even in a legal context, and my interpretation of the word is that I wasn’t going faster than I considered reasonable. Therefore the accusation as officially defined is irrelevant.”

 

Would the judge have not laughed in my face?

I appreciate what you're doing but there's no point, the man apparently teaches linguistics or something and is therefore the universal authority on words.  You have to be a certain kind of insufferable to decide you understand another person's entire view on linguistics and attack it just because they corrected your misinterpretation of a single word.  Say a prayer for his students and save yourself the mental energy.

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

1 hour ago, Dunge said:

Put it this way: A few years back, I got caught by a speed camera. Consider if I’d gone to court over it, represented myself and said to the judge: “What is speeding though? We know that words can change over time, even in a legal context, and my interpretation of the word is that I wasn’t going faster than I considered reasonable. Therefore the accusation as officially defined is irrelevant.”

 

Would the judge have not laughed in my face?

 Genuinely, you've lost me. At which point have I said anything even remotely like that? I said that legal definitions are often not congruent with everyday usage in a non-legal context (this is about as close to undeniable as you can get). At no point have I even come close to saying that you could absolve yourself of criminal liability by arguing that the colloquial definition of word was different from the legal one. It's as if you haven't read a single thing I have written.

 

I have given you multiple examples of laws whose definitions have diverged from their non-legal counterparts; what this means is that you can "assault" somebody legally, for example, by doing something that most people would not call an assault. Or it means you could do the sort of things people generally expect a "thief" to be doing, but not be guilty of "theft" because the legal definition wasn't met. The point I am making is precisely the opposite of what you seem to imagine. So far we've outlined 3 potential sources of a "definition" (there are more):

 

1. Common usage (context, appropriacy, sociolinguistic competence)

2. The dictionary (descriptive, incomplete summary of all usages)

3. Statute/judicial precedent

 

I am saying that the first one is what all of us use every day when we have conversations. As native speakers we do this effortlessly, but non-native speakers have an extremely hard time judging appropriacy. Most of us learned to speak fluently before we were even capable of reading, so it's clear that we have a sense or feeling for syntax and semantics that does not rely on a dictionary. A dictionary is an attempt to partially describe this phenomenon, but it can never completely cover every aspect of every word in every context. You could memorise an entire dictionary and learn every aspect of English grammar, and you still would not fully understand how to use words appropriately in any given context. You learn this by speaking and listening, developing competence over time. Law is a specific field which has taken terminology from the language and modified the definition or constrained it in some way so that it can form the basis for a legal provision. What about this is hard to understand or accept?

Edited 14 November 2021 by MarshallForEngland
typos

[Strokes]

10 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

I appreciate what you're doing but there's no point, the man apparently teaches linguistics or something and is therefore the universal authority on words.  You have to be a certain kind of insufferable to decide you understand another person's entire view on linguistics and attack it just because they corrected your misinterpretation of a single word.  Say a prayer for his students and save yourself the mental energy.

I had that for tea last night, it was lovely.

[doverfox]

1 hour ago, Dunge said:

Put it this way: A few years back, I got caught by a speed camera. Consider if I’d gone to court over it, represented myself and said to the judge: “What is speeding though? We know that words can change over time, even in a legal context, and my interpretation of the word is that I wasn’t going faster than I considered reasonable. Therefore the accusation as officially defined is irrelevant.”

 

Would the judge have not laughed in my face?

You could argue that you are merely travelling rather than driving as Blacks law dictionary defines driving as being involved in commercial activity. You will of course lose. But many sov cits fools or freemen of the land attempt this idiotic defence.

[WigstonWanderer]

Well, this thread went south very quickly! Can we all just agree that Trump and his deranged supporters are a bunch of dangerous cvnts?

Edited 15 November 2021 by WigstonWanderer

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Well, this thread went south very quickly! Can we all just agree that Trump and his deranged supporters are a bunch of dangerous cvnts?

Possibly (though frankly I'm pretty sure there are some posters here who do support him and them), but apparently we can't agree that some of them were insurrectionists who wanted to overthrow the result of a free and fair election on January 6th.

 

So it goes.