Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Verdicting a case
30 views
Skip to first unread message
Mark Brader
May 16, 2012, 3:40:32 PM5/16/12
to
Over in alt.usage.english, we get queries from people who are learning
English and are having trouble understanding a sentence in English that
they read somewhere.
Today one of these posters asked a question about legal jargon:
> Does "to verdict a case" simply mean "to bring a case to verdict"?
A reply was given to the effect that "to verdict a case" is not standard
English usage.
The original poster wrote that he had googled for it and found many
instances of lawyers using it, seemingly with the meaning indicated
above.
I googled for the phrase myself and quickly realized the mistake that
the original poster had made.
*Without* using any Internet resources... what *was* his mistake?
--
Mark Brader | "There is ample evidence that Mr. Coyote was
Toronto | violating both the laws of gravity and inertia
m...@vex.net | at the time of this incident, and thus he is
| responsible for his own woes." --Stephen Menard
My text in this article is in the public domain.
English and are having trouble understanding a sentence in English that
they read somewhere.
Today one of these posters asked a question about legal jargon:
> Does "to verdict a case" simply mean "to bring a case to verdict"?
A reply was given to the effect that "to verdict a case" is not standard
English usage.
The original poster wrote that he had googled for it and found many
instances of lawyers using it, seemingly with the meaning indicated
above.
I googled for the phrase myself and quickly realized the mistake that
the original poster had made.
*Without* using any Internet resources... what *was* his mistake?
--
Mark Brader | "There is ample evidence that Mr. Coyote was
Toronto | violating both the laws of gravity and inertia
m...@vex.net | at the time of this incident, and thus he is
| responsible for his own woes." --Stephen Menard
My text in this article is in the public domain.
J Burns
May 17, 2012, 12:41:55 PM5/17/12
to
On 5/16/12 3:40 PM, Mark Brader wrote:
> Over in alt.usage.english, we get queries from people who are learning
> English and are having trouble understanding a sentence in English that
> they read somewhere.
>
> Today one of these posters asked a question about legal jargon:
>
>> Does "to verdict a case" simply mean "to bring a case to verdict"?
>
> A reply was given to the effect that "to verdict a case" is not standard
> English usage.
>
> The original poster wrote that he had googled for it and found many
> instances of lawyers using it, seemingly with the meaning indicated
> above.
>
> I googled for the phrase myself and quickly realized the mistake that
> the original poster had made.
>
> *Without* using any Internet resources... what *was* his mistake?
I googled it and saw what the poster had overlooked. I guess I was
> Over in alt.usage.english, we get queries from people who are learning
> English and are having trouble understanding a sentence in English that
> they read somewhere.
>
> Today one of these posters asked a question about legal jargon:
>
>> Does "to verdict a case" simply mean "to bring a case to verdict"?
>
> A reply was given to the effect that "to verdict a case" is not standard
> English usage.
>
> The original poster wrote that he had googled for it and found many
> instances of lawyers using it, seemingly with the meaning indicated
> above.
>
> I googled for the phrase myself and quickly realized the mistake that
> the original poster had made.
>
> *Without* using any Internet resources... what *was* his mistake?
using Internet resources.
Dave W
May 18, 2012, 10:20:42 AM5/18/12
to
enough to work it out for himself, so therefore he is not entitled to
ask us to work it out without Googling.
Mark Brader
May 18, 2012, 10:30:36 AM5/18/12
to
Dave Will:
after all, and the answer is perfectly obvious after you see it.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "What Europe needs is a fresh, unused mind."
m...@vex.net | -- Foreign Correspondent
> Mark Googled it to satisfy his own curiosity, i.e. he is not clever
> enough to work it out for himself, so therefore he is not entitled to
> ask us to work it out without Googling.
I am inviting you to be smarter than I was. This *is* rec.puzzles,
> enough to work it out for himself, so therefore he is not entitled to
> ask us to work it out without Googling.
after all, and the answer is perfectly obvious after you see it.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "What Europe needs is a fresh, unused mind."
m...@vex.net | -- Foreign Correspondent
LDC
May 18, 2012, 1:04:20 PM5/18/12
to
On Wed, 16 May 2012 14:40:32 -0500, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
>Over in alt.usage.english, we get queries from people who are learning
>English and are having trouble understanding a sentence in English that
>they read somewhere.
>
>Today one of these posters asked a question about legal jargon:
>
>> Does "to verdict a case" simply mean "to bring a case to verdict"?
>
>A reply was given to the effect that "to verdict a case" is not standard
>English usage.
>
>The original poster wrote that he had googled for it and found many
>instances of lawyers using it, seemingly with the meaning indicated
>above.
>
>I googled for the phrase myself and quickly realized the mistake that
>the original poster had made.
>
>*Without* using any Internet resources... what *was* his mistake?
He did not notice Google had change the search string in an attempt
>Over in alt.usage.english, we get queries from people who are learning
>English and are having trouble understanding a sentence in English that
>they read somewhere.
>
>Today one of these posters asked a question about legal jargon:
>
>> Does "to verdict a case" simply mean "to bring a case to verdict"?
>
>A reply was given to the effect that "to verdict a case" is not standard
>English usage.
>
>The original poster wrote that he had googled for it and found many
>instances of lawyers using it, seemingly with the meaning indicated
>above.
>
>I googled for the phrase myself and quickly realized the mistake that
>the original poster had made.
>
>*Without* using any Internet resources... what *was* his mistake?
to correct a user input error? It usually sasy something like
Searching for "Mark Brader" instead of "Mark Barder"
Mark Brader
May 18, 2012, 2:14:37 PM5/18/12
to
Mark Brader:
--
Mark Brader, Toronto (require 'msb)
m...@vex.net -- Lars Lindberg
>> Over in alt.usage.english, we get queries from people who are learning
>> English and are having trouble understanding a sentence in English that
>> they read somewhere.
>> Today one of these posters asked a question about legal jargon:
>>> Does "to verdict a case" simply mean "to bring a case to verdict"?
>> A reply was given to the effect that "to verdict a case" is not standard
>> English usage.
>> The original poster wrote that he had googled for it and found many
>> instances of lawyers using it, seemingly with the meaning indicated
>> above.
>> I googled for the phrase myself and quickly realized the mistake that
>> the original poster had made.
>> *Without* using any Internet resources... what *was* his mistake?
L.D. Colton:
>> English and are having trouble understanding a sentence in English that
>> they read somewhere.
>> Today one of these posters asked a question about legal jargon:
>>> Does "to verdict a case" simply mean "to bring a case to verdict"?
>> A reply was given to the effect that "to verdict a case" is not standard
>> English usage.
>> The original poster wrote that he had googled for it and found many
>> instances of lawyers using it, seemingly with the meaning indicated
>> above.
>> I googled for the phrase myself and quickly realized the mistake that
>> the original poster had made.
>> *Without* using any Internet resources... what *was* his mistake?
> He did not notice Google had change the search string in an attempt
> to correct a user input error? It usually sasy something like
> Searching for "Mark Brader" instead of "Mark Barder"
Good guess, but wrong. He found the exact same words he was searching on.
> to correct a user input error? It usually sasy something like
> Searching for "Mark Brader" instead of "Mark Barder"
--
Mark Brader, Toronto (require 'msb)
m...@vex.net -- Lars Lindberg
GJ Woeginger
May 18, 2012, 2:45:46 PM5/18/12
to
Mark Brader <m...@vex.net> wrote:
# L.D. Colton:
# > He did not notice Google had change the search string in an attempt
# > to correct a user input error? It usually sasy something like
# > Searching for "Mark Brader" instead of "Mark Barder"
#
# Good guess, but wrong. He found the exact same words he was searching on.
Did he find the words in the right order "to verdict a case"?
Or just pages that contained these four words?
--Gerhard
# L.D. Colton:
# > He did not notice Google had change the search string in an attempt
# > to correct a user input error? It usually sasy something like
# > Searching for "Mark Brader" instead of "Mark Barder"
#
# Good guess, but wrong. He found the exact same words he was searching on.
Did he find the words in the right order "to verdict a case"?
Or just pages that contained these four words?
--Gerhard
Mark Brader
May 18, 2012, 3:03:23 PM5/18/12
to
Gerhard Woeginger:
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "Remember that computers are very,
m...@vex.net very fast..." -- Steve Summit
> Did he find the words in the right order "to verdict a case"?
> Or just pages that contained these four words?
Yes, in the right order.
> Or just pages that contained these four words?
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "Remember that computers are very,
m...@vex.net very fast..." -- Steve Summit
rthe...@hotmail.com
May 18, 2012, 3:31:34 PM5/18/12
to
Bring...?
Roy
Roy
Mark Brader
May 18, 2012, 3:57:28 PM5/18/12
to
Mark Brader:
> Bring...?
That remark suggests that you're getting warm, but you're not there yet.
If you expand it to a full explanation you'll see that there's a problem.
--
Mark Brader "Relax -- I know the procedures backwards."
Toronto "Yeah, well, that's a quick way to get killed."
m...@vex.net -- Chris Boucher, STAR COPS
>> Over in alt.usage.english, we get queries from people who are learning
>> English and are having trouble understanding a sentence in English that
>> they read somewhere.
>>
>> Today one of these posters asked a question about legal jargon:
>>
>>> Does "to verdict a case" simply mean "to bring a case to verdict"?
Roy Thearle:
>> English and are having trouble understanding a sentence in English that
>> they read somewhere.
>>
>> Today one of these posters asked a question about legal jargon:
>>
>>> Does "to verdict a case" simply mean "to bring a case to verdict"?
> Bring...?
That remark suggests that you're getting warm, but you're not there yet.
If you expand it to a full explanation you'll see that there's a problem.
--
Mark Brader "Relax -- I know the procedures backwards."
Toronto "Yeah, well, that's a quick way to get killed."
m...@vex.net -- Chris Boucher, STAR COPS
Willem
May 18, 2012, 4:44:01 PM5/18/12
to
Mark Brader wrote:
) Mark Brader:
)>> Over in alt.usage.english, we get queries from people who are learning
)>> English and are having trouble understanding a sentence in English that
)>> they read somewhere.
)>>
)>> Today one of these posters asked a question about legal jargon:
)>>
)>>> Does "to verdict a case" simply mean "to bring a case to verdict"?
)
) Roy Thearle:
)> Bring...?
)
) That remark suggests that you're getting warm, but you're not there yet.
) If you expand it to a full explanation you'll see that there's a problem.
I also googled it. It's not obvious for non-native-english speakers.
Only the combination of this puzzle and the phrase pointed me to the
intended meaning. Something about the word order, I guess. (I'd write
it as "a case to verdict".)
SaSW, Willem
--
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be
drugged or something..
No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT
) Mark Brader:
)>> Over in alt.usage.english, we get queries from people who are learning
)>> English and are having trouble understanding a sentence in English that
)>> they read somewhere.
)>>
)>> Today one of these posters asked a question about legal jargon:
)>>
)>>> Does "to verdict a case" simply mean "to bring a case to verdict"?
)
) Roy Thearle:
)> Bring...?
)
) That remark suggests that you're getting warm, but you're not there yet.
) If you expand it to a full explanation you'll see that there's a problem.
I also googled it. It's not obvious for non-native-english speakers.
Only the combination of this puzzle and the phrase pointed me to the
intended meaning. Something about the word order, I guess. (I'd write
it as "a case to verdict".)
SaSW, Willem
--
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be
drugged or something..
No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT
Eric Sosman
May 18, 2012, 8:22:29 PM5/18/12
to
On 5/18/2012 4:44 PM, Willem wrote:
> Mark Brader wrote:
> ) Mark Brader:
> )>> Over in alt.usage.english, we get queries from people who are learning
> )>> English and are having trouble understanding a sentence in English that
> )>> they read somewhere.
> )>>
> )>> Today one of these posters asked a question about legal jargon:
> )>>
> )>>> Does "to verdict a case" simply mean "to bring a case to verdict"?
> )
> ) Roy Thearle:
> )> Bring...?
> )
> ) That remark suggests that you're getting warm, but you're not there yet.
> ) If you expand it to a full explanation you'll see that there's a problem.
>
> I also googled it. It's not obvious for non-native-english speakers.
> Only the combination of this puzzle and the phrase pointed me to the
> intended meaning. Something about the word order, I guess. (I'd write
> it as "a case to verdict".)
Now that the bag is catless, yes: It boils down to the meaning
> Mark Brader wrote:
> ) Mark Brader:
> )>> Over in alt.usage.english, we get queries from people who are learning
> )>> English and are having trouble understanding a sentence in English that
> )>> they read somewhere.
> )>>
> )>> Today one of these posters asked a question about legal jargon:
> )>>
> )>>> Does "to verdict a case" simply mean "to bring a case to verdict"?
> )
> ) Roy Thearle:
> )> Bring...?
> )
> ) That remark suggests that you're getting warm, but you're not there yet.
> ) If you expand it to a full explanation you'll see that there's a problem.
>
> I also googled it. It's not obvious for non-native-english speakers.
> Only the combination of this puzzle and the phrase pointed me to the
> intended meaning. Something about the word order, I guess. (I'd write
> it as "a case to verdict".)
of "to." (I cheated.)
--
Eric Sosman
eso...@ieee-dot-org.invalid
Mark Brader
May 19, 2012, 12:17:53 AM5/19/12
to
Eric Sosman:
> Now that the bag is catless...
Well, *now* it is. Sheesh. You couldn't give a spoiler warning?
--
Mark Brader | "...it's a characteristic ... of organizations that try
Toronto | to anticipate every possible failure: they easily
m...@vex.net | come to believe that they *have*..." --Henry Spencer
> Now that the bag is catless...
Well, *now* it is. Sheesh. You couldn't give a spoiler warning?
--
Mark Brader | "...it's a characteristic ... of organizations that try
Toronto | to anticipate every possible failure: they easily
m...@vex.net | come to believe that they *have*..." --Henry Spencer
Robin Halligan
May 19, 2012, 2:41:24 AM5/19/12
to
Was it in the original english or translated into Engrish?
"Mark Brader" wrote in message
news:h_udneuXt8xmASvS...@vex.net...
"Mark Brader" wrote in message
news:h_udneuXt8xmASvS...@vex.net...
Mark Brader
May 19, 2012, 4:30:16 AM5/19/12
to
Mark Brader:
solving the puzzle, here's the complete solution.
What sort of sentence might contain the words "to verdict a case" in
that order? One where they are preceded by a verb, where "to verdict"
describes the action of that verb. For example, as Roy Thearle
suggested, you might "bring to verdict a case".
(Why would you write the words in that order? Because "a case" is
actually followed by another 20 words or so describing the specific case,
and you don't want to delay saying "to verdict" until after all that.)
But in that phrase, nobody would mistake "to verdict" for an infinitive
with the meaning "bring to verdict".
Well, what other verb might fit in there before "to verdict" in a legal
context? Try to think of one.
That's right: "try".
Here is one of the examples that I found when I replicated the original
poster's search:
Here is one of the examples that Google found:
Mr. Leech has also tried to verdict a case involving a bankers
blanket bond in which he represented a commercial bank against its
surety company.
The original poster saw "tried to" and assumed that "to" was an infinitive
marker, and "try" was in the same sense as in "try to think of one".
But actually, "to verdict" was an adverbial phrase that could, if it
wouldn't make the sentence so ugly, have been moved to the end of it.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "Big programs are a bug."
m...@vex.net -- Geoff Collyer
> Over in alt.usage.english, we get queries from people who are learning
> English and are having trouble understanding a sentence in English that
> they read somewhere.
>
> Today one of these posters asked a question about legal jargon:
>
> > Does "to verdict a case" simply mean "to bring a case to verdict"?
>
> A reply was given to the effect that "to verdict a case" is not standard
> English usage.
>
> The original poster wrote that he had googled for it and found many
> instances of lawyers using it, seemingly with the meaning indicated
> above.
>
> I googled for the phrase myself and quickly realized the mistake that
> the original poster had made.
>
> *Without* using any Internet resources... what *was* his mistake?
Okay, now that it's been partially spoiled without anyone actually
> English and are having trouble understanding a sentence in English that
> they read somewhere.
>
> Today one of these posters asked a question about legal jargon:
>
> > Does "to verdict a case" simply mean "to bring a case to verdict"?
>
> A reply was given to the effect that "to verdict a case" is not standard
> English usage.
>
> The original poster wrote that he had googled for it and found many
> instances of lawyers using it, seemingly with the meaning indicated
> above.
>
> I googled for the phrase myself and quickly realized the mistake that
> the original poster had made.
>
> *Without* using any Internet resources... what *was* his mistake?
solving the puzzle, here's the complete solution.
What sort of sentence might contain the words "to verdict a case" in
that order? One where they are preceded by a verb, where "to verdict"
describes the action of that verb. For example, as Roy Thearle
suggested, you might "bring to verdict a case".
(Why would you write the words in that order? Because "a case" is
actually followed by another 20 words or so describing the specific case,
and you don't want to delay saying "to verdict" until after all that.)
But in that phrase, nobody would mistake "to verdict" for an infinitive
with the meaning "bring to verdict".
Well, what other verb might fit in there before "to verdict" in a legal
context? Try to think of one.
That's right: "try".
Here is one of the examples that I found when I replicated the original
poster's search:
Here is one of the examples that Google found:
Mr. Leech has also tried to verdict a case involving a bankers
blanket bond in which he represented a commercial bank against its
surety company.
The original poster saw "tried to" and assumed that "to" was an infinitive
marker, and "try" was in the same sense as in "try to think of one".
But actually, "to verdict" was an adverbial phrase that could, if it
wouldn't make the sentence so ugly, have been moved to the end of it.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "Big programs are a bug."
m...@vex.net -- Geoff Collyer
gerson
May 20, 2012, 8:41:59 AM5/20/12
to
"Mark Brader" <m...@vex.net> wrote
Because of what's been said, and because of of what I've googled for only today, I say
I think that google's changed it's behaviour (rules) without telling out loud, -- I think that,
now, if you put an uncommon word in, while it might make a guess as usual, as when the
word's misspelt, (saying ,"did you mean blah blah"), rather now, depending, it will give
you a different set of results if you put the single uncommon word in qoutes !
Well, I see a change, I think, pretty sure, anybody else ?
LDC
May 20, 2012, 1:58:19 PM5/20/12
to
On Sun, 20 May 2012 22:41:59 +1000, "gerson" <ger...@bigpond.net.au>
wrote:
Google started rolling out changes to the search engine on
Wednesday, 16 May. It is a progressive deployment with a schedule
known only to Google. It was announced (out loud) and has been
covered in various media. Try googling "Knowledge Graph" or "Google
Knowledge Graph"
wrote:
Wednesday, 16 May. It is a progressive deployment with a schedule
known only to Google. It was announced (out loud) and has been
covered in various media. Try googling "Knowledge Graph" or "Google
Knowledge Graph"
James Dow Allen
May 21, 2012, 3:42:13 AM5/21/12
to
On May 19, 3:30 pm, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
> Mr. Leech has also tried to verdict a case involving a bankers
> blanket bond in which he represented a commercial bank against its
> surety company.
Neat puzzle! As a follow-on, shouldn't we try to find the funniest
> Mr. Leech has also tried to verdict a case involving a bankers
> blanket bond in which he represented a commercial bank against its
> surety company.
instances of similar English grammar transformations that we can?
(BTW, 30 years ago when I was a promiscuous commafier, I'd
place a comma above between "verdict" and "a case." I'm more
parsimonious with commas these days, not even using them
to obfuscate C code as much.)
On May 20, 7:41 pm, "gerson" <ger...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> Well, I see a change, I think, pretty sure, anybody else ?
me a half-second or so by fixing my spelling
errors. But special symbols (", +, *) don't work the
way they used to; and as often as not, Google's
over-reactiveness causes my keystrokes to be misdirected.
If I weren't so inertial I'd "make a statement" by
switching engines. Recommendations, anyone? Bing?
James
Mark Brader
May 21, 2012, 1:22:29 PM5/21/12
to
Mark Brader (quoting):
> Neat puzzle!
Glad you liked it.
> As a follow-on, shouldn't we try to find the funniest
> instances of similar English grammar transformations that we can?
Feel free.
> (BTW, 30 years ago when I was a promiscuous commafier, I'd
> place a comma above between "verdict" and "a case." ...)
That would be ungrammatical. But commas before *and* after "to verdict",
that would work.
However, I'm sure that "tried to verdict" would be such a standard
phrase in the vocabulary of lawyers who do that sort of thing that
they wouldn't see any problem with the original sentence.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Domine, defende nos
m...@vex.net | Contra hos stupidos DOS!" -- after A. D. Godley
> > Mr. Leech has also tried to verdict a case involving a bankers
> > blanket bond in which he represented a commercial bank against its
> > surety company.
James Allen:
> > blanket bond in which he represented a commercial bank against its
> > surety company.
> Neat puzzle!
Glad you liked it.
> As a follow-on, shouldn't we try to find the funniest
> instances of similar English grammar transformations that we can?
> (BTW, 30 years ago when I was a promiscuous commafier, I'd
That would be ungrammatical. But commas before *and* after "to verdict",
that would work.
However, I'm sure that "tried to verdict" would be such a standard
phrase in the vocabulary of lawyers who do that sort of thing that
they wouldn't see any problem with the original sentence.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Domine, defende nos
m...@vex.net | Contra hos stupidos DOS!" -- after A. D. Godley
0 new messages