Past participle of stride - strode or stridden?
David Picton
definitely stridden: I strode, I had stridden. An exception is the
OED which also lists strode as a 'colloquial' past participle. What
interests me is the fact that the colloquial form now seems to be
taking over.
I did a web search for "has|have|had strode" vs "has|have|had
stridden". For a worldwide search there were 799 hits for strode vs.
516 for stridden. The dominance of 'strode' is even greater in the
UK: 174 hits for strode, only 28 for stridden!
The question which I want to ask is: which form sounds right to your
'ear'? Do you think that dictionaries should be revised to reflect
the actual status quo, or should they continue to list only 'stridden'
on the basis of logical consistency (ride/rode/ridden,
drive/drove/driven etc.)
(What I expect to happen is that the OED compilers will look for
evidence of use, then quietly drop the 'colloquial' tag on strode as
the past participle. Then smaller dictionaries will follow suit over
time.)
Adrian Bailey
news:2ad9e934.0406...@posting.google.com...
> According to most dictionaries, the past participle of stride is
> definitely stridden: I strode, I had stridden. An exception is the
> OED which also lists strode as a 'colloquial' past participle. What
> interests me is the fact that the colloquial form now seems to be
> taking over.
>
> I did a web search for "has|have|had strode" vs "has|have|had
> stridden". For a worldwide search there were 799 hits for strode vs.
> 516 for stridden. The dominance of 'strode' is even greater in the
> UK: 174 hits for strode, only 28 for stridden!
A lot of the striding in Britain is done in areas where it's common to use
the preterite in place of the past participle for all verbs, ie. Scotland
and the far north of England.
> The question which I want to ask is: which form sounds right to your
> 'ear'?
It difficult to say with such a relatively rare verb. Both sound okay, I
think, though "stridden" makes me think of "striven".
Do you think that dictionaries should be revised to reflect
> the actual status quo, or should they continue to list only 'stridden'
> on the basis of logical consistency (ride/rode/ridden,
> drive/drove/driven etc.)
The dictionaries will change their entries, of course. It might take a
decade or two, though...
Adrian
rewboss
news:2ad9e934.0406...@posting.google.com...
I'm thinking that the perfect aspect of "stride" isn't often used -- not
that it *can't* be used, but that there is seldom any cause for it.
The perfect aspect usually implies some completed action the *result* of
which is still present and can be demonstrated in some way. For example, if
you say "John has come to see you," you mean that John is still there,
waiting for you to greet him. If you say, "John came to see you," you don't
imply that at all, and in all likelihood John has given up waiting for you
and gone back home.
Although it is possible to say, "John has stridden all this way to see you,"
when would you normally need to? It would imply, in addition to the fact
that John is still there, that he is also exhausted from all that striding.
He probably came close to a hamstring injury.
Another possible reason to use the present perfect would be to imply that
someone has acquired knowledge or experience: "He has been to London"
implies that he knows the city, or knows how to get there, or at least can
tell you a bit about the place from his own experience. Again, you could
possibly use "stridden" in that sense -- "He has stridden before, which is
why he's reluctant to try again" -- but it's not going to form part of your
daily routine.
Not that you'd *never* use it -- for example, you might be sitting in a car
in a safari park and talking on a mobile phone to a friend: "I can see some
rhinos... they've stridden across the road behind me...". The past perfect
might be a little more common: "She had just stridden over to the Jones's
house when she heard the gunshot."
So... what's the point of this ramble?
Two things: First, since few people ever have cause to use "stride" in the
perfect aspect, few people know that the past participle is "stridden" (it
follows the same pattern as "ride" -- "rode" -- "have ridden"). Your
Googling revealed this: there must be millions of English languages websites
out there, but only a few hundred have "stride" in the perfect, and most got
it wrong.
Second, since you're seldom going to have to use it yourself (I presume you
must be having to use it now, since you ask, but you may never need to
again), it's probably not worth panicking about.
Arfur Million
news:7LHxc.9$j7...@pathologist.blueyonder.net...
<snip>
> Do you think that dictionaries should be revised to reflect
> > the actual status quo, or should they continue to list only 'stridden'
> > on the basis of logical consistency (ride/rode/ridden,
> > drive/drove/driven etc.)
>
> The dictionaries will change their entries, of course. It might take a
> decade or two, though...
>
> Adrian
>
>
NewSOED gives "strode" as a colloquial alternative to "stridden".
Arfur
Robert Lieblich
>
> "Adrian Bailey" <da...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7LHxc.9$j7...@pathologist.blueyonder.net...
>
> <snip>
>
> > Do you think that dictionaries should be revised to reflect
> > > the actual status quo, or should they continue to list only 'stridden'
> > > on the basis of logical consistency (ride/rode/ridden,
> > > drive/drove/driven etc.)
> >
> > The dictionaries will change their entries, of course. It might take a
> > decade or two, though...
> NewSOED gives "strode" as a colloquial alternative to "stridden".
I checked three mainstream online American dictionaries (M-W, AHD4,
Encarta) and none listed "strode" as an alternative to "stridden." I
have no recollection of ever using a past participle for "stride."
I use "stride" mostly as a noun, and the verb in the simple present
and past.
Given the way the language develops, I'd wager that "strode" will
break into the American dictionaries as past participle in another
few decades.
--
Bob Lieblich
Striding fourth (formerly third, but fading)
David Picton
> "David Picton" <djpi...@bigmailbox.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:2ad9e934.0406...@posting.google.com...
> > According to most dictionaries, the past participle of stride is
> > definitely stridden: I strode, I had stridden. An exception is the
> > OED which also lists strode as a 'colloquial' past participle. What
> > interests me is the fact that the colloquial form now seems to be
> > taking over.
[snip]
> I'm thinking that the perfect aspect of "stride" isn't often used -- not
> that it *can't* be used, but that there is seldom any cause for it.
But sometimes there is. I saw a Usenet post in which J.K. Rowling had
a slap on the wrist for:
Dumbledore had strode alone into the Forest to rescue her from the
centaurs ...
That's what I would have written if I hadn't consulted the dictionary!
I can imagine needing to use the correct form in an academic paper -
something like 'the range through which the random number generator
has stridden'.
Professor Redwine
> But sometimes there is. I saw a Usenet post in which J.K. Rowling had
> a slap on the wrist for:
>
> Dumbledore had strode alone into the Forest to rescue her from the
> centaurs ...
I think it's a bit harsh to slap JKR anywhere for that. Authors,
particularly when in the flow of narrative, often make such errors. Less
obvious errors, such as this, are then very hard to find when reading
one's own work. The editor(s) who let this pass, however, deserve more
than just a slap on the wrist. As both a writer and an editor I consider
it to be understandable writing but shoddy editing.
--
Redwine
Hamburg
(previously: Berlin, Northants, Derbs, Staffs, NSW, Tasmania,
Melbourne, rural Victoria, in that and many other orders)
Daniel James
> According to most dictionaries, the past participle of stride
> is definitely stridden: I strode, I had stridden. An exception
> is the OED which also lists strode as a 'colloquial' past
> participle.
The question is complicated by the existence of "strided" - which
my dictionary doesn't even mention. "Strided" is properly a past
tense - a weak alternative to "strode" - but is also (mis)used as a
past participle.
> (What I expect to happen is that the OED compilers will look
> for evidence of use, then quietly drop the 'colloquial' tag
> on strode as the past participle. ... )
That is exactly what is likely to happen IF (and, one hopes, only
if) they find sufficient evidence. Let's hope they don't.
Cheers,
Daniel.
Daniel James
> I'm thinking that the perfect aspect of "stride" isn't often
> used -- not that it *can't* be used, but that there is seldom
> any cause for it.
I've stridden these moors by night and day for nigh on forty years,
and there isn't a bog or a tussock that I don't know like the back
of my hand.
[For some reason my fingers want to type that in a strong mummerset
accent: "I've strode these moor for nigh-on forty year, and there
bain't a bog nor tussock as I ..." you get the idea.]
Of course, past participles can be and are also used adjectivally -
the West Highland Way is a much stridden track, for example. I
don't see "strode" being used there.
Cheers,
Daniel.
Steve Hayes
>According to most dictionaries, the past participle of stride is
>definitely stridden: I strode, I had stridden. An exception is the
>OED which also lists strode as a 'colloquial' past participle. What
>interests me is the fact that the colloquial form now seems to be
>taking over.
I'd have to look up "past tense" and "past participle" in a dictionary, for
which I need to wait for the sun to come up, and by then the cheap phone rate
will be over at this time of year.
But something similar has struck me - the displacement of "proved" by
"proven".
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Ayaz Ahmed Khan
Strange. I checked my OALD against stride, and here is what it had to
say:
/stride/ verb, noun
- verb (pt strode) (not used in the perfect tenses) [V+adj/prep.]
I couldn't find "stridden" anywhere in OALD. I'm sure there's a good
enough reason why that note was put there in an "Advanced Learner's"
dictionary.
And, now, I see that rewboss has already dedicated a single post to
explaining it.
--
Ayaz Ahmed Khan
"The open-source business model is the one trend Microsoft can't
follow", says Edward Jung, co-founder of Intellectual Ventures
and a former senior software architect at Microsoft.
David Picton
> In article news:<2ip8bcF...@uni-berlin.de>, Rewboss wrote:
> > I'm thinking that the perfect aspect of "stride" isn't often
> > used -- not that it *can't* be used, but that there is seldom
> > any cause for it.
>
> I've stridden these moors by night and day for nigh on forty years,
> and there isn't a bog or a tussock that I don't know like the back
> of my hand.
> Of course, past participles can be and are also used adjectivally -
> the West Highland Way is a much stridden track, for example. I
> don't see "strode" being used there.
I agree. There seems to be a general rule that past participles in -en (e.g.
stricken, drunken) are often retained for adjectival use, even when another
form has taken over as the regular past participle.
Donna Richoux
>
> But something similar has struck me - the displacement of "proved" by
> "proven".
"Proven" has been around for a long time. In 1828, N. Webster said:
PROVEN, a word used by Scottish writers for proved.
Mastertexts shows "proven" used by Twain, London, A. Bronte, Conan
Doyle, Scott, and Stevenson. The last three were all born in Edinburgh.
--
Best - Donna Richoux
Robert Lieblich
Yeah, but there's "proven" the participle and "proven" used as an
attributive adjective -- "proven liar."
Lawyers are constantly struggling with different uses of "proven" --
usually until they lose the struggle.
--
Bob Lieblich
Drinker of 100-proven Scotch
rewboss
news:40C8C29B...@Verizon.net...
Under Scottish law, there is a verdict of "not proven". This is given when
there is not enough evidence for a "guilty" verdict, but the court is pretty
damn sure the defendant is guilty. No sentence is passed, but the verdict
remains as a blemish on one's character.
Mike Lyle
[...]
> But something similar has struck me - the displacement of "proved" by
> "proven".
Yes: it's always existed, of course, but it is getting common.
Anything to do with Scots Law, by any chance? Or just that it's always
been the preferred adjectival form, and is spreading back to the verb?
Mike.
Graeme Thomas
writes
>Under Scottish law, there is a verdict of "not proven". This is given when
>there is not enough evidence for a "guilty" verdict, but the court is pretty
>damn sure the defendant is guilty. No sentence is passed, but the verdict
>remains as a blemish on one's character.
Not so. Originally Scottish courts only had the verdicts "guilty" and
"not proven". Since the task of the prosecution is to prove guilt
beyond reasonable doubt, "not proven" seems a reasonable summary of
theopinion that the prosecution has failed to do so.
I'm not sure what the current situation is. I was once told the
following story: a jury believed that the case before them had been
brought for political reasons, and wanted to make a stronger statement
than "not proven", so they found the defendant "not guilty". I believe
that the jury now can find defendants either "not guilty" or "not
proven", but in both cases the defendant leaves the court without a
stain on his character.
--
Graeme Thomas
rewboss
news:ZYNNBBAE...@graemet.demon.co.uk...
> In article <2irvj0F...@uni-berlin.de>, rewboss <rew...@rewboss.com>
> writes
> >Under Scottish law, there is a verdict of "not proven". This is given
when
> >there is not enough evidence for a "guilty" verdict, but the court is
pretty
> >damn sure the defendant is guilty. No sentence is passed, but the verdict
> >remains as a blemish on one's character.
>
> Not so. Originally Scottish courts only had the verdicts "guilty" and
> "not proven". Since the task of the prosecution is to prove guilt
> beyond reasonable doubt, "not proven" seems a reasonable summary of
> theopinion that the prosecution has failed to do so.
Why "not so"? I said nothing about what Scottish law *originally* said, I
referred to what Scottish law is *now*. And Scottish law *now* has three
verdicts available to the courts: guilty, not proven and not guilty.
>
> I'm not sure what the current situation is. I was once told the
> following story: a jury believed that the case before them had been
> brought for political reasons, and wanted to make a stronger statement
> than "not proven", so they found the defendant "not guilty". I believe
> that the jury now can find defendants either "not guilty" or "not
> proven", but in both cases the defendant leaves the court without a
> stain on his character.
Legally, yes, but not in practice because it implies the defendant was
unable to prove his innocence beyond reasonable doubt.
Donna Richoux
> Donna Richoux wrote:
> >
> > Steve Hayes <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > But something similar has struck me - the displacement of "proved" by
> > > "proven".
> >
> > "Proven" has been around for a long time. In 1828, N. Webster said:
> >
> > PROVEN, a word used by Scottish writers for proved.
> >
> > Mastertexts shows "proven" used by Twain, London, A. Bronte, Conan
> > Doyle, Scott, and Stevenson. The last three were all born in Edinburgh.
>
> Yeah, but there's "proven" the participle and "proven" used as an
> attributive adjective -- "proven liar."
True, but I find it somehow interesting that so many English writers
coped without using "proven" in *any* sense. Austen, Carroll, Darwin,
Defoe, Dickens, Eliot, Hardy, Thackeray (just to name the biggest guns
in Mastertext) -- no instances of "proven" (in the works that Mastertext
indexes).
I just looked at the Bronte hit to see if was Scottish dialect or
anything. It wasn't, it was dialog spoken by the vicar who is just as
English as everybody else:
'And is that right, sir? Have I not proven to you
how wrong it is - how contrary to Scripture and to
reason, to teach a child to look with contempt and
disgust upon the blessings of Providence, instead of
to use them aright?'
So that's a past-particple "proven."
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
Mark Brader
> >
> > Dumbledore had strode alone into the Forest to rescue her from the
> > centaurs ...
> I think it's a bit harsh to slap JKR anywhere for that. Authors,
> particularly when in the flow of narrative, often make such errors.
> a slap on the wrist.
For choosing the "wrong" dictionary? That seems a bit harsh.
For what it's worth, I had never heard of "stridden" before this thread.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "Don't anthropomorphize evolution:
m...@vex.net It hates that." --John Freiler
Dylan Nicholson
news:10chtdo...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > I saw a Usenet post in which J.K. Rowling had a slap on the wrist for:
> > >
> > > Dumbledore had strode alone into the Forest to rescue her from the
> > > centaurs ...
>
> > I think it's a bit harsh to slap JKR anywhere for that. Authors,
> > particularly when in the flow of narrative, often make such errors.
> > ... The editor(s) who let this pass, however, deserve more than just
> > a slap on the wrist.
>
> For choosing the "wrong" dictionary? That seems a bit harsh.
>
> For what it's worth, I had never heard of "stridden" before this thread.
> --
'strode' as the p.p.
Verbix has both:
http://www.verbix.com/webverbix/go.asp?D1=20&H1=104&T1=stride
Google certainly rates [had/have] strode well above stridden.
Dylan
Dylan Nicholson
Steve Hayes
I haven't looked at the dictionary yet, but I THINK proven is the participle
thingy and proved is the past tense.
I would say that something is "not proven", bout I would not say "That hasn't
been proven" but rather "That hasn't been proved".
david56
It is a fundamental tenet of UK law that the defendant doesn't have
to prove anything. It's perfectly possible for a defendant to plead
Not Guilty, then offer no defence and answer no questions, but for
the prosecution to fail to prove his guilt. In England and Wales,
that is Not Guilty.
--
David
=====
David McMurray
> For what it's worth, I had never heard of "stridden" before this thread.
Perhaps you haven't been paying attention. "Stridden" has been commented
on several times since I began following aue in 1997.
David Picton
> David Picton wrote:
> > According to most dictionaries, the past participle of stride
> > is definitely stridden: I strode, I had stridden. An exception
> > is the OED which also lists strode as a 'colloquial' past
> > participle.
>
> The question is complicated by the existence of "strided" - which
> my dictionary doesn't even mention.
> "Strided" is properly a past tense - a weak alternative to "strode" - but is
> also (mis)used as a past participle.
That's because regular past tense forms in -ed can almost always be
used for the past participle as well - for example, showed is
sometimes used as an alternative to shown.
I've also seen two uses which appear to be formed from the noun (as in
a stringed instrument or long-tailed cat):
In computing, a sequence of memory accesses is said to be 'strided' if
each address is separated from the last one by a constant interval
(the stride or stride length). This seems to be the most common use
of 'strided'. I've also seen 'stridden' used in this sense, but it's
very uncommon.
Horses and other animals can be described as 'long-strided' or
'short-strided'.
Dr Robin Bignall
wrote:
In Scotland, that would probably lead to a 'not proven' verdict. In the UK
there are a lot of people who, without too much thought of whether or not
it could happen to them, think that there's no smoke without fire, and that
if the police and prosecutors go so far as to arrest a person and charge
him, he must have done *something* to be in that position. Mud sticks, and
the practice here is that regardless of what is believed by the credulous
about 'innocent before being proved guilty', people have in practice to
prove their innocence. The Sally Clarke case (her book is being serialised
in The Times at the moment, and a consultant is on trial for accusing her
husband of murder after seeing a programme on the telly) is possibly one of
the most blatant examples of England being a thinly-disguised police state
that I've ever seen.
--
wrmst rgrds
Robin Bignall
Hertfordshire
England
Graeme Thomas
writes
>Why "not so"? I said nothing about what Scottish law *originally* said, I
>referred to what Scottish law is *now*. And Scottish law *now* has three
>verdicts available to the courts: guilty, not proven and not guilty.
True. But I don't think that the jury's choice between "not proven" and
"not guilty" depends much on the perceived innocence of the defendant.
>I believe
>> that the jury now can find defendants either "not guilty" or "not
>> proven", but in both cases the defendant leaves the court without a
>> stain on his character.
>
>Legally, yes, but not in practice because it implies the defendant was
>unable to prove his innocence beyond reasonable doubt.
I don't think that the implication is valid. Some jurors will prefer a
verdict of "not proven" just because it's Scottish (and, even more so,
not English). Others will prefer "not guilty", for other reasons. The
jusge, in his summing up, will have given the jurors some idea of his
preferred verdict (between these two; it would be most improper for him
to recommend either a "guilty" or "innocent" verdict).
--
Graeme Thomas
Dr Robin Bignall
Improper or not, the fact that British judges are allowed to dissect the
evidence and comment on their views of it and of the character of the
witnesses, in addition to explaining the law, has led to some major
injustices here over the years. That many of these misdirections of juries
have been rectified on subsequent appeal does not make up for people who
did not commit any offence having to spend many years in prison.
rewboss
news:MPG.1b337beff...@news.individual.net...
What do you mean by "UK law"? There is English law and there is Scottish
law, and the two are very different -- as many an English company signing
contracts with a Scottish company has found to its cost. What you describe
is English law (which also operates in Wales).
There have been campaigns to abolish the Scottish "not proven" verdict
precisely because it seems to run counter to the whole principle of
"innocent until proven guilty". Although "not proven" is, legally, an
acquittal and should be treated no differently to a "not guilty" verdict, in
practice a cloud of suspicion remains in most people's minds. It is also
often interpreted as a slap in the face for the injured party; it suggests
to them that the court knows the defendant is guilty, but decided to let him
off all the same. (George Robertson once tabled a proposal to abolish the
"not proven" verdict for exactly this reason.)
Scottish law is unusual, if not unique, in having three possible verdicts. A
deft piece of Googling will bring up many articles on this subject, although
many people seem rather confused by the whole thing and some of the articles
almost seem to contradict each other.
In the case of the Lockerbie trial -- the trial of the men accused of
involvement in the bombing which brought down PanAm flight 103 -- which was
held under Scottish law, counsel for the defence was hoping for a "not
proven" verdict. In the event, one defendant was found guilty and the other
not guilty -- a not proven verdict was not given in either case.
Areff
> "david56" <bass.c...@ntlworld.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:MPG.1b337beff...@news.individual.net...
>> to prove anything. It's perfectly possible for a defendant to plead
>> Not Guilty, then offer no defence and answer no questions, but for
>> the prosecution to fail to prove his guilt. In England and Wales,
>> that is Not Guilty.
>
> What do you mean by "UK law"? There is English law and there is Scottish
> law, and the two are very different -- as many an English company signing
> contracts with a Scottish company has found to its cost. What you describe
> is English law (which also operates in Wales).
But is it not the case in both English law and Scottish (= rbaniste1E
'Scotch') law the situation is as David56 states -- the burden of proof
(presumably, in both places, beyond reasonable doubt [= AmE 'beyond *a*
reasonable doubt']) is on the prosecution? If so, it seems reasonable to
me to speak of "UK law".
Similarly, I can say that in "American law" the prosecution must prove
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (= BrE 'beyond reasonable doubt'), but
there is, technically speaking, if I were to follow your
England-and-Wales/Scotland argument, no such thing as "American law" --
there are, rather, 51 distinct American legal systems. In all 51 the rule
is the same -- the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
-- and this is in part a consequence of the supremacy of federal law,
since the reasonable-doubt standard is a requirement imposed by the
federal constitution (applicable to the federal government by way of the
Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause, and applicable to the states by way of
the Fourteenth Amendment). But I suspect that there's an
independent-basis state-law constitutional requirement for the (general)
reasonable-doubt standard standard in each of the fifty states.
--
Robert Lieblich
[ ... ]
> Scottish law is unusual, if not unique, in having three possible verdicts. A
> deft piece of Googling will bring up many articles on this subject, although
> many people seem rather confused by the whole thing and some of the articles
> almost seem to contradict each other.
After the presentation of evidence in the impeachment trial of Bill
Clinton (in front of the US Senate and with Chief Justice Rehquist
presiding in his G&S[1] robe), each Senator was called upon to
vote. The only choices given were "guilty" and "not guilty." Arlen
Spector of Pennsylvania (probably the most liberal Republican in the
Senate, and a longtime prosecutor) insisted on voting "not proven,"
which wasn't an option. He was counted in the "not guilty" column.
The funny thing was that "not proven" made no sense in the Clinton
trial. The real issue was political -- not whether he had done what
he was accused of (it was clear he had) but whether it merited
expulsion from office. To convict required a 2/3 majority, and the
vote wasn't close to that.
[1] That's right -- Gilbert and Sullivan. He took the design from
a costume in a performance of "Trial by Jury."
--
Bob Lieblich
Unimpeachable source
david56
> rewboss wrote:
> > "david56" <bass.c...@ntlworld.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > news:MPG.1b337beff...@news.individual.net...
> >> It is a fundamental tenet of UK law that the defendant doesn't have
> >> to prove anything. It's perfectly possible for a defendant to plead
> >> Not Guilty, then offer no defence and answer no questions, but for
> >> the prosecution to fail to prove his guilt. In England and Wales,
> >> that is Not Guilty.
> >
> > What do you mean by "UK law"? There is English law and there is Scottish
> > law, and the two are very different -- as many an English company signing
> > contracts with a Scottish company has found to its cost. What you describe
> > is English law (which also operates in Wales).
>
> But is it not the case in both English law and Scottish (= rbaniste1E
> 'Scotch') law the situation is as David56 states -- the burden of proof
> (presumably, in both places, beyond reasonable doubt [= AmE 'beyond *a*
> reasonable doubt']) is on the prosecution? If so, it seems reasonable to
> me to speak of "UK law".
Yes, that was my point, and is the reason I deliberately put "England
and Wales" at the end.
--
David
=====
Mark Brader
> > For what it's worth, I had never heard of "stridden" before this thread.
> Perhaps you haven't been paying attention.
Perhaps not.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "Truth speak from any chair."
m...@vex.net -- Charlie Chan at the Wax Museum
rewboss
news:2itql1F...@uni-berlin.de...
> rewboss wrote:
> > "david56" <bass.c...@ntlworld.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > news:MPG.1b337beff...@news.individual.net...
> >> It is a fundamental tenet of UK law that the defendant doesn't have
> >> to prove anything. It's perfectly possible for a defendant to plead
> >> Not Guilty, then offer no defence and answer no questions, but for
> >> the prosecution to fail to prove his guilt. In England and Wales,
> >> that is Not Guilty.
> >
> > What do you mean by "UK law"? There is English law and there is Scottish
> > law, and the two are very different -- as many an English company
signing
> > contracts with a Scottish company has found to its cost. What you
describe
> > is English law (which also operates in Wales).
>
> But is it not the case in both English law and Scottish (= rbaniste1E
> 'Scotch') law the situation is as David56 states -- the burden of proof
> (presumably, in both places, beyond reasonable doubt [= AmE 'beyond *a*
> reasonable doubt']) is on the prosecution? If so, it seems reasonable to
> me to speak of "UK law".
That's not quite what david56 was saying. He was saying that in "UK law", if
the prosecution fails to prove the defendant's guilt, the defendant is found
not guilty. In Scotland, however, that is not the case -- the defendant may
be found not guilty (he has been able to prove his innocence) or not proven
(the prosecution has failed to prove his guilt). david56 specifically
mentioned England and Wales, but implied that the same system operates in
Scotland by referring to "UK law".
Areff
>> > What do you mean by "UK law"? There is English law and there is Scottish
>> > law, and the two are very different -- as many an English company
> signing
>> > contracts with a Scottish company has found to its cost. What you
> describe
>> > is English law (which also operates in Wales).
>>
>> But is it not the case in both English law and Scottish (= rbaniste1E
>> 'Scotch') law the situation is as David56 states -- the burden of proof
>> (presumably, in both places, beyond reasonable doubt [= AmE 'beyond *a*
>> reasonable doubt']) is on the prosecution? If so, it seems reasonable to
>> me to speak of "UK law".
>
> That's not quite what david56 was saying. He was saying that in "UK law", if
> the prosecution fails to prove the defendant's guilt, the defendant is found
> not guilty.
But David56 said this:
> It is a fundamental tenet of UK law that the defendant doesn't have
> to prove anything. It's perfectly possible for a defendant to plead
> Not Guilty, then offer no defence and answer no questions, but for
> the prosecution to fail to prove his guilt. In England and Wales,
> that is Not Guilty.
Seems to me that he's specifying that where the prosecution fails to prove
guilt, the corresponding verdict is "not guilty" in England and Wales.
The event (of the prosecution failing to prove guilt) also exists in
Scotland. He simply didn't specify that in Scotland the "not proven"
verdict is available.
> In Scotland, however, that is not the case -- the defendant may
> be found not guilty (he has been able to prove his innocence) or not proven
> (the prosecution has failed to prove his guilt). david56 specifically
> mentioned England and Wales, but implied that the same system operates in
> Scotland by referring to "UK law".
I read it otherwise -- by specifically mentioning "England and Wales", he
seems to be implying that it might be otherwise in other parts of the UK.
--
Mark Brader
> After the presentation of evidence in the impeachment trial of Bill
> of Pennsylvania ... insisted on voting "not proven," which wasn't
> an option. He was counted in the "not guilty" column.
> The funny thing was that "not proven" made no sense in the Clinton
> trial. The real issue was political -- not whether he had done what
> he was accused of (it was clear he had) but whether it merited
Assuming that "not proven" had been a permitted option, wouldn't it
have been sensible in the event that it was not proven whether Clinton's
actions merited expulsion from office or not?
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | It depends upon what the meaning of the word "is" is.
m...@vex.net | -- Bill Clinton
Robert Lieblich
>
> Bob Lieblich writes:
> > After the presentation of evidence in the impeachment trial of Bill
> > Clinton ... each Senator was called upon to vote. ... Arlen Spector
> > of Pennsylvania ... insisted on voting "not proven," which wasn't
> > an option. He was counted in the "not guilty" column.
>
> > The funny thing was that "not proven" made no sense in the Clinton
> > trial. The real issue was political -- not whether he had done what
> > he was accused of (it was clear he had) but whether it merited
> > expulsion from office. ...
>
> Assuming that "not proven" had been a permitted option, wouldn't it
> have been sensible in the event that it was not proven whether Clinton's
> actions merited expulsion from office or not?
Impeachment is a different animal, and Spector was deliberately
muddying the waters. My view is that the Senators knew damned well
what he had done and weren't willing to throw him out for it -- even
though they could have done so if they had wanted to. In criminal
law the elements of a given offense are well established by statute
or court decision, and the function of the jury is to decide
whether, in a given case, the evidence proves such elements beyond a
reasonable doubt. An element of mayhem (called "maiming" in some
American jurisdictions) is physical injury to the victim. No
physical injury, no conviction. Indeed, if no physical injury is
proved by the prosecution, the judge will enter a judgment of
acquittal without even sending the case to the jury.
But in impeachment there are no such standards. So the Senate isn't
really congruent to a jury in the sense that it decides whether the
elements of the offense were proved. If the offense was lying under
oath, there's no real question that Clinton did so. But the problem
is that he wasn't impeached for "lying under oath" per se. He was
impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors," which is what the
Constitution says will get someone thrown out of office. No one but
the individual Senators could decide whether what Clinton did was
"high crimes and misdemeanors." The CJ never ruled on that, because
there's no constitutional provision, statute, or case law to furnish
guidance.
The House managers, IMO, proved what they set out to prove. Enough
of the Senate shrugged it off to enable Clinton to escape conviction
and loss of office. Probably the right result, but no feather in
Clinton's cap.
--
Bob Lieblich
Those were NOT the good old days
Raymond S. Wise
news:40CA5DD6...@Verizon.net...
It seems to me that in the United States, impeachment and removal from
office is essentially a political process: That is, in principle, the House
could declare picking one's nose to be a "high crime" or "misdemeanor" and
use that definition to impeach the person under investigation, and the
Senate could agree and thus remove the person from office. This is because
there is no review of the decision by any higher court.
That's regrettable, in my opinion, since I think impeachment and removal
from office should be a legal, rather than a political process. This could
be accomplished by having the impeachment and removal appealable through the
court system, as is the case in South Korea, where the impeachment and
removal of President Roh Moo Hyun was recently thrown out by the
Constitutional Court.
I would not be at all surprised if some American states have impeachment and
removal systems that *are* reviewable by the courts. I also figure that hell
will freeze over before the US Congress makes any serious effort to move to
make their impeachment procedures reviewable by the courts.
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
Enrico C
alt.usage.english,alt.english.usage,uk.culture.language.english
in <news:2itnmgF...@uni-berlin.de>
<snip>
> There have been campaigns to abolish the Scottish "not proven" verdict
> precisely because it seems to run counter to the whole principle of
> "innocent until proven guilty". Although "not proven" is, legally, an
> acquittal and should be treated no differently to a "not guilty" verdict, in
> practice a cloud of suspicion remains in most people's minds. It is also
> often interpreted as a slap in the face for the injured party; it suggests
> to them that the court knows the defendant is guilty, but decided to let him
> off all the same. (George Robertson once tabled a proposal to abolish the
> "not proven" verdict for exactly this reason.)
>
> Scottish law is unusual, if not unique, in having three possible verdicts.
In Italy we had three possible verdicts as well, but that was in the
past. A few years ago we abolished the "not proven" verdict [it was
called something like "acquittal based upon insufficient proof"] for
more or less the same reasons they want to abolish it in Scotland
now.
> A deft piece of Googling will bring up many articles on this subject, although
> many people seem rather confused by the whole thing and some of the articles
> almost seem to contradict each other.
>
> In the case of the Lockerbie trial -- the trial of the men accused of
> involvement in the bombing which brought down PanAm flight 103 -- which was
> held under Scottish law, counsel for the defence was hoping for a "not
> proven" verdict. In the event, one defendant was found guilty and the other
> not guilty -- a not proven verdict was not given in either case.
.
X'Posted to: alt.usage.english,alt.english.usage,uk.culture.language.english
FUP2: [Follow-up to: / Risposte a:] uk.legal.moderated
--
Enrico C
Do Something Amazing Today
Save a Life, Give Blood
Enrico C
alt.usage.english,alt.english.usage,uk.culture.language.english
in <news:2itnmgF...@uni-berlin.de>
<snip>
> precisely because it seems to run counter to the whole principle of
> "innocent until proven guilty". Although "not proven" is, legally, an
> acquittal and should be treated no differently to a "not guilty" verdict, in
> practice a cloud of suspicion remains in most people's minds. It is also
> often interpreted as a slap in the face for the injured party; it suggests
> to them that the court knows the defendant is guilty, but decided to let him
> off all the same. (George Robertson once tabled a proposal to abolish the
> "not proven" verdict for exactly this reason.)
>
> Scottish law is unusual, if not unique, in having three possible verdicts.
In Italy we had three possible verdicts as well, but that was in the
past. A few years ago we abolished the "not proven" verdict [it was
called something like "acquittal based upon insufficient proof"] for
more or less the same reasons they want to abolish it in Scotland
now.
> A deft piece of Googling will bring up many articles on this subject, although
> many people seem rather confused by the whole thing and some of the articles
> almost seem to contradict each other.
>
> In the case of the Lockerbie trial -- the trial of the men accused of
> involvement in the bombing which brought down PanAm flight 103 -- which was
> held under Scottish law, counsel for the defence was hoping for a "not
> proven" verdict. In the event, one defendant was found guilty and the other
> not guilty -- a not proven verdict was not given in either case.
I think this is an interisting topic for uk.legal.moderated, so I set
a Followup-to to that group, in other words replies to this post will
go there.
If you don't want that, you can change it in the list of Newsgroups
when sending a message, of course :)
Areff
> It seems to me that in the United States, impeachment and removal from
> office is essentially a political process: That is, in principle, the House
> could declare picking one's nose to be a "high crime" or "misdemeanor" and
> use that definition to impeach the person under investigation, and the
> Senate could agree and thus remove the person from office. This is because
> there is no review of the decision by any higher court.
>
> That's regrettable, in my opinion, since I think impeachment and removal
> from office should be a legal, rather than a political process. This could
> be accomplished by having the impeachment and removal appealable through the
> court system, as is the case in South Korea, where the impeachment and
> removal of President Roh Moo Hyun was recently thrown out by the
> Constitutional Court.
>
> I would not be at all surprised if some American states have impeachment and
> removal systems that *are* reviewable by the courts. I also figure that hell
> will freeze over before the US Congress makes any serious effort to move to
> make their impeachment procedures reviewable by the courts.
This all assumes that there's really some difference between "legal" and
"political" (I'm not sure whether there is or not). Many people seem to
regard the Supreme Court decision regarding the Florida ballot disaster in
2000 as a "political" decision, and of course it wasn't reviewable.
There's an influential left-wing school of legal philosophy called
"critical legal studies", the basic premise of which is that all law is
actually just politics.
One argument in favor of the current system is that it strikes the best
balance between the three branches of government. The check against
abusive actions by the legislature against the executive is the ballot
box. Courts are, arguably, much more dangerous because they're so
shielded from democratic review. I seem to remember some discussions
with you in the past where I thought you had an excessively-sanguine view
of the courts, which is a peculiar characteristic of American liberals
whose view of the courts was shaped during the Warren Court era
[NTTAWWT].
--
Mike Lyle
[...]
> There's an influential left-wing school of legal philosophy called
> "critical legal studies", the basic premise of which is that all law is
> actually just politics.
Just as a similar standpoint takes the basic premise that _everything_
is politics. Well, if somebody wants it that way, it's hard to
disagree; but that way madness lies.
> One argument in favor of the current system is that it strikes the best
> balance between the three branches of government. The check against
> abusive actions by the legislature against the executive is the ballot
> box. Courts are, arguably, much more dangerous because they're so
> shielded from democratic review. I seem to remember some discussions
> with you in the past where I thought you had an excessively-sanguine view
> of the courts, which is a peculiar characteristic of American liberals
> whose view of the courts was shaped during the Warren Court era
> [NTTAWWT].
Strangely, the English and Scottish courts often act as though they
were a _form_ of democratic review: there is no constitutional court
here, but the various Justices don't seem to hesitate to act in that
role. A regular victim is, ironically, the Home Office, which is
responsible for public order, prisons, etc.
Mike.
Robert Bannister
> "David Picton" <djpi...@bigmailbox.net> wrote in message
> news:2ad9e934.0406...@posting.google.com...
>
>>According to most dictionaries, the past participle of stride is
>>definitely stridden: I strode, I had stridden. An exception is the
>>OED which also lists strode as a 'colloquial' past participle. What
>>interests me is the fact that the colloquial form now seems to be
>>taking over.
>>
>>I did a web search for "has|have|had strode" vs "has|have|had
>>stridden". For a worldwide search there were 799 hits for strode vs.
>>516 for stridden. The dominance of 'strode' is even greater in the
>>UK: 174 hits for strode, only 28 for stridden!
>
>
> A lot of the striding in Britain is done in areas where it's common to use
> the preterite in place of the past participle for all verbs, ie. Scotland
> and the far north of England.
>
>
>>The question which I want to ask is: which form sounds right to your
>>'ear'?
>
>
> It difficult to say with such a relatively rare verb. Both sound okay, I
> think, though "stridden" makes me think of "striven".
These rare verbs do cause problems even with those of us who kid
ourselves that we 'know'. I recently saw 'stave' and thought how odd it
looked, as I would normally only see the past tense 'stove'. And what is
the past participle: stoven or stove?
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
> In article news:<2ad9e934.0406...@posting.google.com>,
> David Picton wrote:
>
>>According to most dictionaries, the past participle of stride
>>is definitely stridden: I strode, I had stridden. An exception
>>is the OED which also lists strode as a 'colloquial' past
>>participle.
>
>
> The question is complicated by the existence of "strided" - which
> my dictionary doesn't even mention. "Strided" is properly a past
> tense - a weak alternative to "strode" - but is also (mis)used as a
> past participle.
>
I'm sure I have also come across 'strid', but I can't remember whether
that was a UK dialect or not.
--
Rob Bannister
meirman
<rew...@rewboss.com> posted:
Wouldn't it be enough to prove his innocense by a preponderance of the
evidence? If he could prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, why did
the prosecutor even bring the charge?
>
s/ meirman If you are emailing me please
say if you are posting the same response.
Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis, 7 years
Chicago, 6 years
Brooklyn NY 12 years
Baltimore 20 years
meirman
Wise" <mplsra...@gbronline.com> posted:
>"Robert Lieblich" <Robert....@Verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:40CA5DD6...@Verizon.net...
>>... Enough
>> of the Senate shrugged it off to enable Clinton to escape conviction
>> and loss of office. Probably the right result, but no feather in
>> Clinton's cap.
There was no feather in the Republicans' caps either.
>> --
>> Bob Lieblich
>It seems to me that in the United States, impeachment and removal from
>office is essentially a political process: That is, in principle, the House
Absolutely.
And one reason that Clinton was not convicted is that the polls always
showed that the voters didn't want it. They were happy enough with
the way he was running the government, or they didn't think the whole
investigation into his sex life was seemly**,
**In the past, neither the press nor, I think, other politicians
talked about such things. Not counting Gary Hart who was asked a
couple questions and then he dared them. (I'm sure there are other
exceptions too.)
>could declare picking one's nose to be a "high crime" or "misdemeanor" and
>use that definition to impeach the person under investigation, and the
>Senate could agree and thus remove the person from office. This is because
>there is no review of the decision by any higher court.
>
>That's regrettable, in my opinion, since I think impeachment and removal
>from office should be a legal, rather than a political process. This could
>be accomplished by having the impeachment and removal appealable through the
>court system, as is the case in South Korea, where the impeachment and
>removal of President Roh Moo Hyun was recently thrown out by the
>Constitutional Court.
He was actually out of office for a while and then back in??? Or he
stayed in office pending appeal??
>I would not be at all surprised if some American states have impeachment and
>removal systems that *are* reviewable by the courts. I also figure that hell
>will freeze over before the US Congress makes any serious effort to move to
>make their impeachment procedures reviewable by the courts.
When Andrew Johnson was impeached, I think it was 6 Republicans who
voted to acquit. And I vaguely remember that every vote was needed.
He won only by one vote, I vaguely think. I heard on some history
program that none of the 6 ever got anywhere in politics again,
because the radical Republicans treated them as enemies.
Raymond S. Wise
news:jqonc09tnnn3o1vid...@4ax.com...
> In alt.english.usage on Sat, 12 Jun 2004 02:00:04 -0500 "Raymond S.
> Wise" <mplsra...@gbronline.com> posted:
[...]
He was out of office pending an appeal to the Constitutional Court.
>
> >I would not be at all surprised if some American states have impeachment
and
> >removal systems that *are* reviewable by the courts. I also figure that
hell
> >will freeze over before the US Congress makes any serious effort to move
to
> >make their impeachment procedures reviewable by the courts.
>
> When Andrew Johnson was impeached, I think it was 6 Republicans who
> voted to acquit. And I vaguely remember that every vote was needed.
> He won only by one vote, I vaguely think. I heard on some history
> program that none of the 6 ever got anywhere in politics again,
> because the radical Republicans treated them as enemies.
meirman
mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Lyle) posted:
That is all that is happening in the US also, although here it started
around 1803. That's when the Supreme Court asserted in Marbury vs.
Madison the power to declare a law unconstitutional. Although they
were in a better situation to claim that power since the US
Constitution does say that the Constitution is the "supreme law of the
land" iirc. The decision is portrayed now as either a landmark or a
big step. It is the first, but I don't think it's the second, since I
think it almost inevitable that if the Constitution is the supreme
law, a law that conflicts with it would have to be invalid.
And the end of the decision, quoted at
http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Marbury/ seems to make that point well.
> A regular victim is, ironically, the Home Office, which is
>responsible for public order, prisons, etc.
>
>Mike.
Molly Mockford
wrote in <cag990$3k1$2...@enyo.uwa.edu.au>:
>These rare verbs do cause problems even with those of us who kid
>ourselves that we 'know'. I recently saw 'stave' and thought how odd it
>looked, as I would normally only see the past tense 'stove'. And what
>is the past participle: stoven or stove?
"Staved" is what I have used throughout my life - as in "I felt an urge
to Google for this word, but I have staved it off for the time being."
Assuming, of course, that you are talking about the base verb to stave,
but I can't think of any other base verb which would fit.
--
Molly Mockford
I think I've been too long on my own, but the little green goblin that
lives under the sink says I'm OK - and he's never wrong, so I must be!
(My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.)
Areff
> That is all that is happening in the US also, although here it started
> around 1803. That's when the Supreme Court asserted in Marbury vs.
> Madison the power to declare a law unconstitutional. Although they
> were in a better situation to claim that power since the US
> Constitution does say that the Constitution is the "supreme law of the
> land" iirc. The decision is portrayed now as either a landmark or a
> big step. It is the first, but I don't think it's the second, since I
> think it almost inevitable that if the Constitution is the supreme
> law, a law that conflicts with it would have to be invalid.
What wasn't at all clear before _Marbury_ was whether courts had, or
should have, the power to be the ones to declare that a particular law was
invalid because it was inconsistent with the Constitution. This was
particularly true with respect to *federal* laws (and actions by the
executive) -- it was always less controversial to say that courts could
enforce the federal law trumps state law principle.
It's hard to see how things would work well without judicial review, but
prior to _Marbury_ there isn't much authority for courts having the power
to do that sort of thing, so _Marbury_ really was a very big step.
Without _Marbury_ we'd have a more UK-style system, with a
more legislatively-subservient judiciary.
--
Gwilym Calon
> It's hard to see how things would work well without judicial review, but
> prior to _Marbury_ there isn't much authority for courts having the power
> to do that sort of thing, so _Marbury_ really was a very big step.
> Without _Marbury_ we'd have a more UK-style system, with a
> more legislatively-subservient judiciary.
I'm not at all sure that the UK does have a "legislatively-subservient
judiciary". Clearly laws are determined by Parliament but many are loosely
framed. In such cases, the application in detail is determined in the Courts
through the system of "precedent" (i.e what a previous Court has decided, in a
similar case).
-------
GC
Areff
Sure, that exists in the US too. The difference is that there's no
supra-legislative legal authority that can be used by a UK court to
nullify Parliamentary or government acts -- all authority is grounded in
parliamentary legislation. In the US authority is grounded in the US
Constitution [CUE PATRIOTIC MUSIC] which is something that is higher than
the Congress.
--
Gwilym Calon
True (I believe), but the EU and European Commision, are, at least in part,
starting to claim these powers.
-------
GC
Mike Lyle
> >Strangely, the English and Scottish courts often act as though they
> >were a _form_ of democratic review: there is no constitutional court
> >here, but the various Justices don't seem to hesitate to act in that
> >role.
>
> That is all that is happening in the US also, although here it started
> around 1803. That's when the Supreme Court asserted in Marbury vs.
> Madison the power to declare a law unconstitutional. Although they
> were in a better situation to claim that power since the US
> Constitution does say that the Constitution is the "supreme law of the
> land" iirc. The decision is portrayed now as either a landmark or a
> big step. It is the first, but I don't think it's the second, since I
> think it almost inevitable that if the Constitution is the supreme
> law, a law that conflicts with it would have to be invalid.
>
> And the end of the decision, quoted at
> http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Marbury/ seems to make that point well.
Wow! That told him! And in what exemplary clear English, too: an
intelligent present-day eighteen-year-old with no legal training would
have no difficulty in understanding the judgement.
(I noted the economy of capital letters: e.g., in "department of
state". Interesting, but I don't know if it's significant.)
I had not understood that the Supreme Court of the US was not
explicitly entrenched by the Constitution -- or constitution! -- as
the guardian of its provisions. It seems that at the outset it may not
have meant much more than the -- to me rather vague -- English
"Supreme Court of Justice". Unsurprising, I suppose: you can't shake
off a thousand years of jurisprudence and custom overnight.
Mike.
Areff
> I had not understood that the Supreme Court of the US was not
> explicitly entrenched by the Constitution -- or constitution! -- as
> the guardian of its provisions. It seems that at the outset it may not
> have meant much more than the -- to me rather vague -- English
> "Supreme Court of Justice".
Basically, all that the Constitution says about the Supreme Court (and the
federal judiciary in general) is the following, from Article III:
=== begin quote [and CUE PATRIOTIC MUSIC] ===
Section 1.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme
Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time
ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts,
shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated
Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be
diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section 2.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising
under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made,
or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting
Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of
admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United
States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more
States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens
of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands
under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens
thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
=== end quote ===
This doesn't really do too much.
--
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
Robert....@Verizon.net "Robert Lieblich" wrote:
> The House managers, IMO, proved what they set out to prove. Enough
> of the Senate shrugged it off to enable Clinton to escape conviction
> and loss of office. Probably the right result, but no feather in
> Clinton's cap.
You mean "close, but no cigar"? Monica would be disappointed.
--
fix (vb.): 1. to paper over, obscure, hide from public view; 2. to
work around, in a way that produces unintended consequences that are
worse than the original problem. Usage: "Windows ME fixes many of the
shortcomings of Windows 98 SE".
Robert Bannister
> At 09:07:01 on Sun, 13 Jun 2004, Robert Bannister <rob...@it.net.au>
> wrote in <cag990$3k1$2...@enyo.uwa.edu.au>:
>
>> These rare verbs do cause problems even with those of us who kid
>> ourselves that we 'know'. I recently saw 'stave' and thought how odd
>> it looked, as I would normally only see the past tense 'stove'. And
>> what is the past participle: stoven or stove?
>
>
> "Staved" is what I have used throughout my life - as in "I felt an urge
> to Google for this word, but I have staved it off for the time being."
>
> Assuming, of course, that you are talking about the base verb to stave,
> but I can't think of any other base verb which would fit.
You're right, using the word in that sense, but in the 'stave in', ie
bashing a door or boat to pieces, 'stove' seems more common. Or is it
only in intransitive use? I'm not sure - I don't use the word, except as
you do, but I do come across it in reading.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
In Australia, such questions or interpretations of the law would be done
by the Supreme Court. The English equivalent used to be, I think, the
Privy Council, but has not that now been abolished? Has nothing taken
its place?
--
Rob Bannister
David Picton
> haye...@hotmail.com (Steve Hayes) wrote in message news:<40c7e3f1....@news.saix.net>...
> [...]
> >
> > But something similar has struck me - the displacement of "proved" by
> > "proven".
>
> Yes: it's always existed, of course, but it is getting common.
> Anything to do with Scots Law, by any chance?
Yes - the OED confirms this.
> Or just that it's always been the preferred adjectival form, and is spreading back to the verb?
No - the OED gives the impression that proved was originally the
preferred form for the adjective, with proven taking over in
relatively recent times.
I've done a few Google searches, with the following results
1. In adjectival use there appears to be a fairly strong preference
for proven e.g. 'proven results' or 'proven theories'.
2. In the passive, e.g. 'has been proven' vs. 'has been proved',
there is a (weaker) preference in favour of proven. (There seems to
be an exception for Wills in the UK, which are almost always 'proved'
and hardly ever 'proven').
3. As a past participle following the verb 'to have', there is a weak
preference for proven left-of-Pond, proved right-of-Pond.
Mike Lyle
Thank you.
Mike.
David Picton
> But something similar has struck me - the displacement of "proved" by
> "proven".
Also the reappearance of "disproven" which is given in the OED but
seems to have fallen out of use for a while. It's strangely absent
from online dictionaries, including the Verbix conjugator and the Word
spellchecker. New Fowler's Modern English Usage comments that
"disproven no longer alternates with disproved as past participle" but
did so until about 1900.
I tried a Google search for disproven vs. disproved. The results
(with a correction for the small minority of hits with "disproved" as
the past tense):
Worldwide: 25% disproven, 75% disproved.
East-of-Pond: 12% disproven, 88% disproved.
Professor Redwine
>> > I saw a Usenet post in which J.K. Rowling had a slap on the wrist for:
>> >
>> > Dumbledore had strode alone into the Forest to rescue her from the
>> > centaurs ...
>
>> I think it's a bit harsh to slap JKR anywhere for that. Authors,
>> particularly when in the flow of narrative, often make such errors.
>> ... The editor(s) who let this pass, however, deserve more than just
>> a slap on the wrist.
>
> For choosing the "wrong" dictionary? That seems a bit harsh.
Has it been established that it is a "wrong dictionary" issue? If so, then
perhaps it is a little harsh. But otherwise, no: that's part of what
editors are paid for.
> For what it's worth, I had never heard of "stridden" before this thread.
Not sure what it's worth, but it's interesting.
--
Redwine
Hamburg
(previously: Berlin, Northants, Derbs, Staffs, NSW, Tasmania,
Melbourne, rural Victoria, in that and many other orders)
David Picton
> Of course, past participles can be and are also used adjectivally -
> the West Highland Way is a much stridden track, for example. I
> don't see "strode" being used there.
I think I can now put my finger on the reason why the past participle
of stride is used so rarely. In current usage, it's unusual to
'stride' anything without a qualifying preposition: I strode along the
path, through the forest, over the stream. This has two consequences.
Firstly, the verb 'to stride' is rarely used in the passive voice
(although it can be: for example, I found a report in which 'a new
economic step was stridden over'.) Secondly, the past participle is
hardly ever used as an adjective.
Dr Robin Bignall
wrote:
The Privy Council still exists, according to
http://www.privy-council.org.uk/output/page2.asp
Some judges of the High Court (and maybe the Law Lords themselves) have
certainly blocked or reversed decisions made by our Home Secretary during
the past year or two.
--
wrmst rgrds
Robin Bignall
Hertfordshire
England
Areff
> Some judges of the High Court (and maybe the Law Lords themselves) have
> certainly blocked or reversed decisions made by our Home Secretary during
> the past year or two.
Sure, but only because they have statutory or legislatively-grounded
authority to do so. There's nothing they can do that can't be reversed by
simple majority vote of the House of Commons.
Not so in These Good Ol' United States of America! [CUE PATRIOTIC MUSIC
ONE MORE TIME]
--
Gwilym Calon
So what you're saying (if I undertstand correctly) is:
The USA is democratic because the decisions of an elected body (Congress) can be
overruled by an unelected body (Supreme Court);
whereas
The UK is undemocratic because the decisions of an unelected body (Privy
Council) can be reversed by an elected body (Parliament).
Hmmm....
-------
GC
Areff
No sir. I never said the US was "more democratic" than the UK; clearly the
UK has the more democratic system, but it's sort of a
democratically-grounded dictatorship, you might say. (Occasionally an
actual dictatorship, as during World War II, as I understand it --
Parliament formally ceded all powers to the Churchill government.)
The folks what designed the US Constitution were, in fact, genteel
rich guys who were alarmed at the very democratic forms of state
government that were put in place following independence from Britain.
Those early state governments typically had figurehead governors and more
or less powerless judiciaries, all power being in the hands of the
popularly-elected legislature.
--
David Picton
> Steve Hayes <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > But something similar has struck me - the displacement of "proved" by
> > "proven".
>
>
> PROVEN, a word used by Scottish writers for proved.
And by Webster himself, in the entry for 'A':
The A has been proven to be the first natural vocal sound ...
Steve Hayes
wrote:
As I've heard some citizens of the USA explain it, the USA is not a democracy,
it is a republic.
Kingdoms like the UK do things differently.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Gwilym Calon
news:40cfcac6...@news.saix.net...
> As I've heard some citizens of the USA explain it, the USA is not a democracy,
> it is a republic.
>
> Kingdoms like the UK do things differently.
Yes, that's probably true, and it leads to a lot of misunderstanding or
misconsruction. Being an "old-world" country, the UK has a number of
"historical" institutions (such as the monarchy) which have an appearance of
power whilst not actually possessing any in reality. It is easy for non-UK
observers to believe that these institutions are more important to the
democratic decison making process than they actually are.
-------
GC
Matti Lamprhey
>
> [...] I never said the US was "more democratic" than the UK; clearly
> the UK has the more democratic system, but it's sort of a
> democratically-grounded dictatorship, you might say. (Occasionally an
> actual dictatorship, as during World War II, as I understand it --
> Parliament formally ceded all powers to the Churchill government.)
"All powers"? I never heard that before, and a cite would be
interesting.
Matti
Dr Robin Bignall
>Dr Robin Bignall wrote:
>> Some judges of the High Court (and maybe the Law Lords themselves) have
>> certainly blocked or reversed decisions made by our Home Secretary during
>> the past year or two.
>
>Sure, but only because they have statutory or legislatively-grounded
>authority to do so. There's nothing they can do that can't be reversed by
>simple majority vote of the House of Commons.
>
True, but decisions of the Commons can and have been reversed by the Lords.
To overcome that, the Commons has to use the Parliament Act (?), but that
is only wheeled out (supposedly) on important issues.
Matti Lamprhey
> Areff <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> >Dr Robin Bignall wrote:
> >> Some judges of the High Court (and maybe the Law Lords themselves)
> >> have certainly blocked or reversed decisions made by our Home
> >> Secretary during the past year or two.
> >
> >Sure, but only because they have statutory or legislatively-grounded
> >authority to do so. There's nothing they can do that can't be
> >reversed by simple majority vote of the House of Commons.
> >
> True, but decisions of the Commons can and have been reversed by the
> Lords. To overcome that, the Commons has to use the Parliament Act
> (?), but that is only wheeled out (supposedly) on important issues.
AIUI it's not correct to say that the Lords can "reverse" a decision of
the Commons. Rather, a bill passed in the Commons goes to the Lords to
be put into a final form, and this can mean that it will first need to
be returned to the Commons under some circumstances. In many cases the
delay causes the legislation to be shelved, often for good reasons; but
the Commons can always force a bill through if it really wants to.
Matti
Gary Williams
> ... since few people ever have cause to use "stride" in the
> perfect aspect ...
My guess is that this is, in addition to the semantic subtleties which
you pointed out, a function of the fact that few people ever have
cause to use "to stride" in _any_ aspect.
Gary Williams
Don Aitken
It didn't go so far as "all powers", but it was fairly sweeping. There
was a power to make regulations for any purpose related to the
prosecution of the war, to create criminal offences punishable by any
penalty except death, to intern people without trial, and to "require
any person to place himself or his property at the disposal of His
Majesty". All of these were extensively exercised. I think the
Emergency Powers (Defence) Act 1940 is the relevant legislation.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
Matti Lamprhey
> "Matti Lamprhey" <matti-...@totally-official.com> wrote:
> >"Areff" <m...@privacy.net> wrote...
> >>
> >> [...] I never said the US was "more democratic" than the UK;
> >> clearly the UK has the more democratic system, but it's sort of a
> >> democratically-grounded dictatorship, you might say. (Occasionally
> >> an actual dictatorship, as during World War II, as I understand
> >> it -- Parliament formally ceded all powers to the Churchill
> >> government.)
> >
> >"All powers"? I never heard that before, and a cite would be
> >interesting.
> >
> It didn't go so far as "all powers", but it was fairly sweeping. There
> was a power to make regulations for any purpose related to the
> prosecution of the war, to create criminal offences punishable by any
> penalty except death, to intern people without trial, and to "require
> any person to place himself or his property at the disposal of His
> Majesty". All of these were extensively exercised. I think the
> Emergency Powers (Defence) Act 1940 is the relevant legislation.
And Parliament could have revoked any or all of those powers at any
time; it's that which preserves the representative democracy
throughout. I expect Areff was just having fun, though.
Matti
Areff
What if the Government used its war powers to abolish Parliament for good
and all?
--
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Matti Lamprhey wrote:
>> "Don Aitken" <don-a...@freeuk.com> wrote...
>>> It didn't go so far as "all powers", but it was fairly sweeping. There
>>> was a power to make regulations for any purpose related to the
>>> prosecution of the war, to create criminal offences punishable by any
>>> penalty except death, to intern people without trial, and to "require
>>> any person to place himself or his property at the disposal of His
>>> Majesty". All of these were extensively exercised. I think the
>>> Emergency Powers (Defence) Act 1940 is the relevant legislation.
>>
>> And Parliament could have revoked any or all of those powers at any
>> time; it's that which preserves the representative democracy
>> throughout. I expect Areff was just having fun, though.
>
> What if the Government used its war powers to abolish Parliament for good
> and all?
So has anybody actually played Nomic?
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |You gotta know when to code,
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | Know when to log out,
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |Know when to single step,
| Know when you're through.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |You don't write your program
(650)857-7572 | When you're sittin' at the term'nal.
|There'll be time enough for writin'
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | When you're in the queue.
Don Aitken
That is one power they didn't have. Parliament itself could extend its
life beyond the usual five years, and did so, but only by a year at a
time (the parliament elected in 1935 sat for ten years). The serious
point, I suppose, is that we have nothing like the constitutional
restrictions which would prevent such things from happening in the
USA. What we do (or at least did) have is a long democratic tradition
and a great respect for the power of parliament. Churchill himself had
that, to what some of his ministers considered an exagerated extent,
and would never let Parliament be bypassed in any matter he considered
really important.
Eric Schwartz
> So has anybody actually played Nomic?
A variant is not actually played as a joke on another newsgroup I
frequent, but I've never met anybody who's actually played it. I went
and looked up the rules the other day, and there are a surprising
number for such a relatively "simple" game. It's useful as a
meta-theme, though; one can rule common spelling mistakes as
equivalent to reduce the number of redundant flames.
-=Eric
--
Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million
typewriters, and Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare.
-- Blair Houghton.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Evan Kirshenbaum <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> writes:
>> So has anybody actually played Nomic?
>
> A variant is not actually played as a joke on another newsgroup I
> frequent, but I've never met anybody who's actually played it. I went
> and looked up the rules the other day, and there are a surprising
> number for such a relatively "simple" game.
If we're thinking of the same game (the one invented by Peter Suber),
how do you decide how many rules there are, other than
instantaneously?
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |In the beginning, there were no
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |reasons, there were only causes.
Palo Alto, CA 94304 | Daniel Dennet
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Eric Schwartz
> If we're thinking of the same game (the one invented by Peter Suber),
> how do you decide how many rules there are, other than
> instantaneously?
There's a set of basic rules that you're presumed to start with
(unless you decide to start with other rules, in which case you might
well play a game of Meta-Nomic to decide what rules you'll start
playing Nomic under). That set was larger than I originally suspected
it would be.
Checking Suber's website on Nomic (at
<URL:http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/nomic.htm>), I see that there are
29 initial rules; 16 immutable ones and 13 mutable. After you get
started, of course, you can have as many (or as few) rules as you
like, subject to any rules that happen to exist on the amendment of
other rules.
I've often wondered what sort of game would result if a rule existed
that every three turns, a random previously-deleted rule would be
restored in the place of any other rule except the one that allowed it
to be resurrected. :)