 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / February 2010absent meaning "in the absence of"
I saw this headline today 'Lost' better absent expectations I read it a few times before I figured out that the writer was trying to say the show would be better in the absence of expectations. I looked at 'absent' in a few online dictionaries but couldn't see any place where this usage was defined. Is this usage headline writers' jargon? > I saw this headline today > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > place where this usage was defined. Is this usage headline writers' > jargon? No. OED identifies it as US (chiefly law) and the first cite is: "1944 Rep. Supreme Court S. Dakota (1948) LXX. 191 We think it clear that under this definition, absent any other facts, there arises an implied contract that the patient will pay." Other cites are mainly from legal sources but there is also "1965 R. Flesch ABC of Style 6 Absence. Don't use in the absence of as a preposition instead of without.+ Some lawyers use the word absent in the same ugly way."  SignatureJohn Dean Oxford > No. OED identifies it as US (chiefly law) and the first cite is: > > "1944 Rep. Supreme Court S. Dakota (1948) LXX. 191 We think it clear that > under this definition, absent any other facts, there arises an implied > contract that the patient will pay." Interesting. When I first ran into it in the late '70s, I just assumed it must be old-fashioned and British, like transitive "lacking" used similarly. ¬R > > No. OED identifies it as US (chiefly law) and the first cite is: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > ¬R Thanks to all who replied. While on the subject of busts, I found this newsitem funny http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com/2010/01/al-qaeda-now-planning-breast-impla nt.html >> > No. OED identifies it as US (chiefly law) and the first cite is: >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >While on the subject of busts, I found this newsitem funny >http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com/2010/01/al-qaeda-now-planning-breast-impla nt.html .... .... Security sources said the explosives would be detonated by the bomber using a hypodermic syringe to inject TATP (Triacetone Triperoxide) through their skin into the explosives sachet. Ah, of course. Passengers are permitted to carry hypodermic syringes on to a plane. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>>> No. OED identifies it as US (chiefly law) and the first cite is: >>>> "1944 Rep. Supreme Court S. Dakota (1948) LXX. 191 We think it clear that [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Ah, of course. Passengers are permitted to carry hypodermic syringes on > to a plane. Why do I have the feeling that al Qaeda is making up weird ideas and discussing them openly on the internet to see what foolish things the UK and US will do next in their vain attempts at complete security? --Jeff SignatureIs man one of God's blunders or is God one of man's? --Friedrich Nietzsche >>>>> No. OED identifies it as US (chiefly law) and the first cite is: >>>>> "1944 Rep. Supreme Court S. Dakota (1948) LXX. 191 We think it clear that [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >discussing them openly on the internet to see what foolish things the UK >and US will do next in their vain attempts at complete security? It is a completely standard military ploy. You lead the enemy to think you are doing one thing when you intentions are quite different. If your enemy can be pushed into running around like headless chickens dealing with a threat that is credible you have the upper hand. You refer to "vain attempts at complete security" but the authorities will be held responsible if they become aware of a threat but ignore it. There is no way that a government could survive saying something like "we choose to accept the risk of one airliner full of passengers being destroyed in mid-air every five years because the inconvenience and aggravation to passengers of preventing this would be too great". SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) > There is no way that a government could survive saying something like > "we choose to accept the risk of one airliner full of passengers being > destroyed in mid-air every five years because the inconvenience and > aggravation to passengers of preventing this would be too great". Although Governments do - though not quite in so many words - accept the certainty of one airliner full of passengers being killed in car accidents every two-and-a-bit months [UK figures, based on 2008 and 747-300] because the inconvenience and aggravation of preventing this would be too great. SignatureOnline waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk >> There is no way that a government could survive saying something like >> "we choose to accept the risk of one airliner full of passengers being [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >747-300] because the inconvenience and aggravation of preventing this >would be too great. Yes. This is one of those things that comes down to the public's understanding, acceptance and tolerance of particular types of risk. 'Tis all very psychological. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >> There is no way that a government could survive saying something >> like "we choose to accept the risk of one airliner full of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 747-300] because the inconvenience and aggravation of preventing > this would be too great. I'd say that the primary perceived difference is the latter is seen as "dying" rather than "being killed". If even a much smaller number were being intentionally murdered by means of car accidents, regardless of who did the intending, the response would probably be very different. People are (for the most part) good at being willing to accept a background level of risk in their daily lives. What they're not good at is accepting risk from forces that actively mean to do them harm. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Those who study history are doomed 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |to watch others repeat it. Palo Alto, CA 94304 kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>> There is no way that a government could survive saying something >>> like "we choose to accept the risk of one airliner full of [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > background level of risk in their daily lives. What they're not good > at is accepting risk from forces that actively mean to do them harm. Is that the distinction? Or is it that people overestimate the probability of death from causes that get a lot of media coverage. The British public showed a lot of anxiety over BSE when the risks were very low indeed, there was, however, a great deal of media coverage. American gun laws seem to be an example in another direction - even though the people wielding guns may be actively trying to do harm. Americans, as a group, seem to have become desensitised to the level of gun crime, which I think run out at about 10 9/11s a year. -- Mike Page Mike Page wrote, in small part: > Americans, as a group, seem to have become desensitised to the level > of gun crime, which I think run out at about 10 9/11s a year. Faulty grammar aside, I'm too dense to make out what the tail end of the sentence is supposed to mean. Help! SignatureSkitt (AmE) >Mike Page wrote, in small part: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Faulty grammar aside, I'm too dense to make out what the tail end of the >sentence is supposed to mean. Help! Remember, remember the Ninth of November! Jet fuel, treason and plot. Yes, I at first took it to be 10^9 divided by 11 shillings, and had to think about it for a while. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk Mike Page: >>> Americans, as a group, seem to have become desensitised to the level >>> of gun crime, which I think run out at about 10 9/11s a year. "Skitt": >> Faulty grammar aside, I'm too dense to make out what the tail end of the >> sentence is supposed to mean. Help! > Remember, remember the Ninth of November! > Jet fuel, treason and plot. Eeek! > Yes, I at first took it to be 10^9 divided by 11 shillings, and had > to think about it for a while. I couldn't figure out any reading for a few seconds, then I realized its was one of those plurals that still need an apostrophe. 10 9/11's. SignatureMark Brader, Toronto | "My ambition is to see a saying of mine attributed msb@vex.net | to Dorothy Parker or Mark Twain." -- Joe Fineman > Mike Page: >>>> Americans, as a group, seem to have become desensitised to the [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > its was one of those plurals that still need an apostrophe. 10 > 9/11's. To my mind, spelling out the "10" as "ten" might have helped a bit. SignatureSkitt (AmE) >Mike Page: >>>> Americans, as a group, seem to have become desensitised to the level [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >I couldn't figure out any reading for a few seconds, then I realized its >was one of those plurals that still need an apostrophe. 10 9/11's. Yes, that might have made it clearer, much though I dislike apostophe plurals. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk > Mike Page wrote, in small part: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Faulty grammar aside, I'm too dense to make out what the tail end of > the sentence is supposed to mean. Help! That "gun crime" is responsible for about 30,000 deaths a year. When _Time_ did their "Death By Gun" issue, they found 231 homicides (and 233 suicides and accidents) in the week they looked, which would be about 12,000 a year. But, as I say in my other reply, most of those were, IIRC, either people committing a crime or people who tended to commit crimes (i.e., one criminal killing another). SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Of course, over the first 10^-10 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |seconds and 10^-30 cubic Palo Alto, CA 94304 |centimeters it averages out to |zero, but when you look in kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |detail.... (650)857-7572 | Philip Morrison http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>>> There is no way that a government could survive saying something >>>> like "we choose to accept the risk of one airliner full of [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > the risks were very low indeed, there was, however, a great deal of > media coverage. I think it's more mine than yours, but maybe a better way to look at it is that people are comfortable with risks they've gotten used to, especially if they've been around a long time and appear to be getting lower over time and especially if they see a benefit to the activity associated with the risk. What people are uncomfortable with is (1) risks that stem from people intending to do harm or who they perceive of as acting in a way that culpably ignores harm they facilitate or (2) risks that appear suddenly and appear to be growing rather than shrinking. They see the role of government to protect them from the people in (1) and to work to stem the increase in (2), as well as to encourage the trend toward reduction for other risks. > American gun laws seem to be an example in another direction - even > though the people wielding guns may be actively trying to do > harm. Americans, as a group, seem to have become desensitised to the > level of gun crime, which I think run out at about 10 9/11s a year. The difference with guns is that the risk (both real and perceived, although these don't line up) isn't uniformly distributed. The vast majority of gun deaths don't pose a risk for the vast majority of people. When _Time_ did their "Death by gun" issue back in 1989, they found 464 instances over the course of the week. Over half (233) were suicides. The presence of guns does not measurably increase my risk due to suicide. Some were accidents by people handling guns. I'm not likely to find myself in that situation. About 5% were ruled justifiable homicide. I don't worry that I'm going to be in a situation where it would be okay to shoot me. Some were police officers shot (I'm not a police officer) or criminals shot by police officers in the commission of a crime (unlikely to be my situation). Of the rest, the vast bulk were things like gang members shooting one another or altercations between drug dealers, situations I'm not likely to be a party to. When you get it down to non-criminal crime victims and truly innocent bystanders, you're down to a much smaller number. And even there, most of them can be chalked up to "places I'm smart enough to stay away from". So the perceived risk is much less. On the other hand, I do regularly put myself in the pool of potential victims of people who want to crash airplanes. And, of course, there are other factors to consider. By now, most of us have relegated the terrorism threat to an acceptable background level. When there was concern, it had just happened for the first time (that affected most of us), and it wasn't clear whether we should expect attempts at that sort of thing every day, every week, every month, or what. We had no way to gauge what the long-term level of risk was going to be. But those responsible for creating it were assuring us that it was going to be high. And those responsible for preventing it were agreeing. And, of course, as with guns, and to arguably a much greater extent, there was other collateral damage to the 9/11 incidents. There was an enormous amount of property damage, injury, and widespread disruption of pretty much everything. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |A handgun is like a Lawyer. You 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |don't want it lying around where Palo Alto, CA 94304 |the children might be exposed to |it, but when you need one, you need kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |it RIGHT NOW, and nothing else will (650)857-7572 |do. | Bill McNutt http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>>> There is no way that a government could survive saying something >>>> like "we choose to accept the risk of one airliner full of [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >Americans, as a group, seem to have become desensitised to the level of >gun crime, which I think run out at about 10 9/11s a year. And a lot of 7-11s. SignatureJohn <snip> >American gun laws seem to be an example in another direction - even >though the people wielding guns may be actively trying to do harm. >Americans, as a group, seem to have become desensitised to the level of >gun crime, which I think run out at about 10 9/11s a year. When the victims of gun crime are among the disadvantaged of society, as they often are, the general population more easily accepts their deaths than if they'd been their peers. I frequently observed this phenomenon when I lived near what was then one of the crime capitals of America, the District of Columbia. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>> There is no way that a government could survive saying something >>> like "we choose to accept the risk of one airliner full of [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > background level of risk in their daily lives. What they're not good > at is accepting risk from forces that actively mean to do them harm. The only objection I've got to that otherwise persuasive argument is the hair-tearing and shirt-rending that goes on whenever there is a (trivial in car terms) train accident (a genuine accident - although the amount of "someone must be blamed" that goes on suggests that that concept isn't allowed in that case). I think there's an influence of the (partial illusion) of control when driving, and the relative frequency of the accidents. SignatureOnline waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk [...] > Interesting. When I first ran into it in the late '70s, I just assumed > it must be old-fashioned and British, like transitive "lacking" used > similarly. It is certainly a common term in lawyerly writing, but it is, I think, unfair to critique it as an "ugly substitute" for "lacking" or "without". First off, why it is "uglier" than either of those words would be hard to say. But, more germane, it has a sense that is slightly but at times significantly different from those words, in that it means a little more than just "not there", because--just as with its use for people--it carries an implication that what is missing ouhgt in the ordinary course of events to be there. Something absent is not simply "not there", it is not where it might have been expected to be. When a judge writes "We think it clear that under this definition, absent any other facts, there arises an implied contract that the patient will pay," what he is saying is that the claim that was raised would logically require certain special facts to make it tenable; when those facts, which would be expected were the claim to be plausible, are not there, the claim is void. Less technically, "absent X" implies, at least mildly, that there was a need or expectation of X implicit in the situation. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ >[...] > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >Less technically, "absent X" implies, at least mildly, that there was a >need or expectation of X implicit in the situation. In form, it resembles the recently discussed "come Thursday ..." - what amounts to a predicate adjective preceding what it modifies, making a phrase that conditions a clause or sentence. The availability of other ways of expressing the idea doesn't make it ugly, either. SignatureJohn >> No. OED identifies it as US (chiefly law) and the first cite is: >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >it must be old-fashioned and British, like transitive "lacking" used >similarly. I've caught myself using it quite a bit of late. I've no idea when I picked it up, or from where. Cheers - Ian (BrE: Yorks., Hants.) >> I saw this headline today >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > No. OED identifies it as US (chiefly law)[...] Economists are also fond of it. They often write like lawyers, possibly because they think of themselves as corporation lawyers at large. Signature--- Joe Fineman joe_f@verizon.net ||: One cannot announce that the sky is falling without offering :|| ||: a vision for how to get out from under it. :|| >> I saw this headline today >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > that under this definition, absent any other facts, there arises an > implied contract that the patient will pay." They can push it back a bit: [Attn Jesse Sheidlower: OED antedating] It is argued on behalf of the State that we may not (absent proof or allegation in the indictment, as here) assume the defendant is so engaged. State v. Missouri Pacific Railway Company, Supreme Court of Missouri, June 3, 1908. One is that, absent proof one way or the other (as here), there would be no presumption indulged that the widow had appropriated the cause of action. Fulwider v. Trenton Gas, Light & Power Co., Supreme Court of Missouri, Feb. 25, 1909. Absent testimony to the contrary (as here) several presumptions flow from that theory and apply to the facts of this record. Phelan v. Granite Bituminous Paving Co., Supreme Court of Missouri, March 30, 1910, in _The Southwestern Reporter_, May 11-June 1, 1910 The presumption is generally in favor of the validity of a former marriage, absent evidence to the contrary. -- State v. Locke _The Pafific Reporter_, Sept. 13-Nov. 8, 1915 Though it was necessary, in an action for death from being struck by a street car, to allege and prove that decedent was in the exercise of due care and caution for his own safety, yet, there being no eyewitnesses, exercise of such care could be established by the highest proof of which the case was capable and, absent other circumstances, proof that he was habitually prudent, careful, and cautious, tending to raise the presumption that he was in the exercise of due care and caution at the time, is sufficient. Casey v. Chicago Rys. Co., Supreme Court of Illinois, Oct. 27, 1915, in _Central Law Journal_, Dec. 3, 1915. It may be significant that the three earliest hits I found, from 1908, 1909, and 1910, are all from decisions of the Supreme Court of Missouri. In at least two of the cases, the judge writing the opinion appears to have been Henry Lamm, which a book on the Missouri Supreme Court calls "If not the greatest, certainly the most quotable member of the Supreme Court of Missouri." (Dunne, _The Missouri Supreme Court: From Dred Scott to Nancy Cruzan) It may be that his decisions are the vector that got it into legal jargon (and, later, popular speech). SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |If we have to re-invent the wheel, 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |can we at least make it round this Palo Alto, CA 94304 |time? kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > I saw this headline today > > 'Lost' better absent expectations This is a defective headline (by old American traditions) so far as it has no unambiguous main verb. > I read it a few times before I figured out that the writer was trying > to say the show would be better in the absence of expectations. > > I looked at 'absent' in a few online dictionaries but couldn't see any > place where this usage was defined. Is this usage headline writers' > jargon? Probably not. The phrase "absent XYZ" simply means "without XYZ" and became common 10 to 20 years ago. My guess is that it originated in the social sciences (often tempted to emulate the styles of writing in physics and chemistry) and was taken up by writers in politics and advertising who believe "scientific" language makes their English more credible or convincing. As the OP observed, the phrase adds nothing to the language i.e. is wholly redundant. SignatureDon Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) >> I saw this headline today >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > their English more credible or convincing. As the OP observed, the > phrase adds nothing to the language i.e. is wholly redundant. One of the sentences frequently used to illustrate the ablative absolute in Latin is "Domino absente, fur fenestram penetravi" (The home owner being absent, the thief entered through the window). Of course, that doesn't make this English nominative absolute construction any more elegant. SignatureJames >>> I saw this headline today >>> >>> 'Lost' better absent expectations [...] > One of the sentences frequently used to illustrate the ablative > absolute in Latin is "Domino absente, fur fenestram penetravi" (The > home owner being absent, the thief entered through the window). You are /so/ busted. > [true] >>>> I saw this headline today >>>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> >> [true] "Busted"? Perhaps he should join the queue: http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/health/2010/02/02/2010-02-02_male_breast_re duction_gaining_popularity_fastest_growing_cosmetic_surgery_in_uk_.html or http://tinyurl.com/ygbjcnv Male breast reduction gaining popularity; fastest growing cosmetic surgery in U.K., up in U.S. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>>>> I saw this headline today >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Male breast reduction gaining popularity; fastest growing > cosmetic surgery in U.K., up in U.S. I should have added "T.i.t.s. 'nicked'". >>>> I saw this headline today >>>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > You are /so/ busted. >> [true] I dropped a telltale "t". SignatureJames >I saw this headline today > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >place where this usage was defined. Is this usage headline writers' >jargon? I think it's legal jargon, and that doesn't seem to be a good example. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.