 |
 | 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 / British English / June 2004Past participle of stride - strode or stridden?
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! 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.) > According to most dictionaries, the past participle of stride is > definitely stridden: I strode, I had stridden. An exception is the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 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 <snip> > Do you think that dictionaries should be revised to reflect > > the actual status quo, or should they continue to list only 'stridden' [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Adrian NewSOED gives "strode" as a colloquial alternative to "stridden". Arfur > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > 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.  SignatureBob Lieblich Striding fourth (formerly third, but fading) "Robert Lieblich" typed: >> <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > break into the American dictionaries as past participle in another > few decades. 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. SignatureAyaz 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. >>According to most dictionaries, the past participle of stride is >>definitely stridden: I strode, I had stridden. An exception is the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > 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? SignatureRob Bannister At 09:07:01 on Sun, 13 Jun 2004, Robert Bannister <robban@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. SignatureMolly 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.) > At 09:07:01 on Sun, 13 Jun 2004, Robert Bannister <robban@it.net.au> > wrote in <cag990$3k1$2@enyo.uwa.edu.au>: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 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. SignatureRob Bannister > According to most dictionaries, the past participle of stride is > definitely stridden: I strode, I had stridden. An exception is the [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > the past participle. Then smaller dictionaries will follow suit over > time.) 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. > > 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'. > 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. SignatureRedwine Hamburg (previously: Berlin, Northants, Derbs, Staffs, NSW, Tasmania, Melbourne, rural Victoria, in that and many other orders) > > 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. SignatureMark Brader, Toronto "Don't anthropomorphize evolution: msb@vex.net It hates that." --John Freiler > > > I saw a Usenet post in which J.K. Rowling had a slap on the wrist for: > > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > For what it's worth, I had never heard of "stridden" before this thread. Nor I, but I'm unable to find an online dictionary that explicitly allows '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 Mark Brader <msb@vex.net> wrote, in part: > 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. Mark Brader: > > For what it's worth, I had never heard of "stridden" before this thread. David McMurray: > Perhaps you haven't been paying attention. Perhaps not. SignatureMark Brader, Toronto "Truth speak from any chair." msb@vex.net -- Charlie Chan at the Wax Museum >> > I saw a Usenet post in which J.K. Rowling had a slap on the wrist for: >> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > 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. SignatureRedwine Hamburg (previously: Berlin, Northants, Derbs, Staffs, NSW, Tasmania, Melbourne, rural Victoria, in that and many other orders) > 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. > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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. > 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. > ... 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 > 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. > > According to most dictionaries, the past participle of stride > > is definitely stridden: I strode, I had stridden. An exception [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > "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'. >>According to most dictionaries, the past participle of stride >>is definitely stridden: I strode, I had stridden. An exception [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 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. SignatureRob Bannister >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". SignatureSteve 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 > 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. SignatureBest - Donna Richoux > > But something similar has struck me - the displacement of "proved" by > > "proven". [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 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." Lawyers are constantly struggling with different uses of "proven" -- usually until they lose the struggle. SignatureBob Lieblich Drinker of 100-proven Scotch > > > But something similar has struck me - the displacement of "proved" by > > > "proven". [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Lawyers are constantly struggling with different uses of "proven" -- > usually until they lose the struggle. 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. >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. SignatureGraeme Thomas > >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 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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. rewboss typed thus: > > >Under Scottish law, there is a verdict of "not proven". This is given > when [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Legally, yes, but not in practice because it implies the defendant was > unable to prove his innocence beyond reasonable doubt. 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. SignatureDavid ===== >rewboss typed thus: > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >the prosecution to fail to prove his guilt. In England and Wales, >that is Not Guilty. 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. Signaturewrmst rgrds Robin Bignall Hertfordshire England > rewboss typed thus: > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > 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). 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. >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 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. [ ... ] > 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." SignatureBob Lieblich Unimpeachable source 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? SignatureMark Brader, Toronto | It depends upon what the meaning of the word "is" is. msb@vex.net | -- Bill Clinton > Bob Lieblich writes: > > After the presentation of evidence in the impeachment trial of Bill [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > 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. SignatureBob Lieblich Those were NOT the good old days > > Bob Lieblich writes: > > > After the presentation of evidence in the impeachment trial of Bill [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > and loss of office. Probably the right result, but no feather in > Clinton's cap. 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. SignatureRaymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com > 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 [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > 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]. -- [...] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 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. In alt.english.usage on 12 Jun 2004 15:22:25 -0700 mike_lyle_uk@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Lyle) posted: >[...] >> There's an influential left-wing school of legal philosophy called [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >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. > A regular victim is, ironically, the Home Office, which is >responsible for public order, prisons, etc. > >Mike. 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 > 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. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 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. > In alt.english.usage on 12 Jun 2004 15:22:25 -0700 > mike_lyle_uk@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Lyle) posted: [...] > >Strangely, the English and Scottish courts often act as though they > >were a _form_ of democratic review: there is no constitutional court [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > 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. > 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. In alt.english.usage on Sat, 12 Jun 2004 02:00:04 -0500 "Raymond S. Wise" <mplsrayNOSPAM@gbronline.com> posted: >>... 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. >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 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >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. 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 > In alt.english.usage on Sat, 12 Jun 2004 02:00:04 -0500 "Raymond S. > Wise" <mplsrayNOSPAM@gbronline.com> posted: [...] > >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 [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > He was actually out of office for a while and then back in??? Or he > stayed in office pending appeal?? 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 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > program that none of the 6 ever got anywhere in politics again, > because the radical Republicans treated them as enemies. SignatureRaymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com On Friday, in article <40CA5DD6.341FAA67@Verizon.net> > 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. Signaturefix (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". <snip> > There have been campaigns to abolish the Scottish "not proven" verdict > precisely because it seems to run counter to the whole principle of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 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 SignatureEnrico C Do Something Amazing Today Save a Life, Give Blood <snip> > There have been campaigns to abolish the Scottish "not proven" verdict > precisely because it seems to run counter to the whole principle of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 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 :) X'Posted to: alt.usage.english,alt.english.usage,uk.culture.language.english FUP2: [Follow-up to: / Risposte a:] uk.legal.moderated SignatureEnrico C Do Something Amazing Today Save a Life, Give Blood >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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >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). SignatureGraeme Thomas >>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 [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >preferred verdict (between these two; it would be most improper for him >to recommend either a "guilty" or "innocent" verdict). 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. Signaturewrmst rgrds Robin Bignall Hertfordshire England In alt.english.usage on Fri, 11 Jun 2004 00:55:26 +0200 "rewboss" <rewboss@rewboss.com> posted: >> >Under Scottish law, there is a verdict of "not proven". This is given >when [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >Legally, yes, but not in practice because it implies the defendant was >unable to prove his innocence beyond reasonable doubt. 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 > > > But something similar has struck me - the displacement of "proved" by > > > "proven". [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 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." SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux >> But something similar has struck me - the displacement of "proved" by >> "proven". [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Mastertexts shows "proven" used by Twain, London, A. Bronte, Conan >Doyle, Scott, and Stevenson. The last three were all born in Edinburgh. 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". SignatureSteve 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 > > 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. And by Webster himself, in the entry for 'A': The A has been proven to be the first natural vocal sound ... [...] > 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. > [...] > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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. > > [...] > > > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > 3. As a past participle following the verb 'to have', there is a weak > preference for proven left-of-Pond, proved right-of-Pond. Thank you. Mike. > 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. |
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.