| Author |
Message |
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2004 3:16 am
Post subject: Re: Past participle of stride - strode or stridden? |
|
|
hayesmstw@hotmail.com (Steve Hayes) wrote in message news:<40c7e3f1.123580351@news.saix.net>...
[...]
| Quote: |
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.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Graeme Thomas
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:07 am
Post subject: Re: Past participle of stride - strode or stridden? |
|
|
In article <2irvj0Fpnpd5U1@uni-berlin.de>, rewboss <rewboss@rewboss.com>
writes
| Quote: | Under Scottish law, there is a verdict of "not proven". This is given when
there is not enough evidence for a "guilty" verdict, but the court is pretty
damn sure the defendant is guilty. No sentence is passed, but the verdict
remains as a blemish on one's character.
|
Not so. Originally Scottish courts only had the verdicts "guilty" and
"not proven". Since the task of the prosecution is to prove guilt
beyond reasonable doubt, "not proven" seems a reasonable summary of
theopinion that the prosecution has failed to do so.
I'm not sure what the current situation is. I was once told the
following story: a jury believed that the case before them had been
brought for political reasons, and wanted to make a stronger statement
than "not proven", so they found the defendant "not guilty". I believe
that the jury now can find defendants either "not guilty" or "not
proven", but in both cases the defendant leaves the court without a
stain on his character.
--
Graeme Thomas |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rewboss
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:55 am
Post subject: Re: Past participle of stride - strode or stridden? |
|
|
"Graeme Thomas" <graeme@graemet.demon.co.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:ZYNNBBAEuNyAFw4q@graemet.demon.co.uk...
| Quote: | In article <2irvj0Fpnpd5U1@uni-berlin.de>, rewboss <rewboss@rewboss.com
writes
Under Scottish law, there is a verdict of "not proven". This is given
when
there is not enough evidence for a "guilty" verdict, but the court is
pretty
damn sure the defendant is guilty. No sentence is passed, but the verdict
remains as a blemish on one's character.
Not so. Originally Scottish courts only had the verdicts "guilty" and
"not proven". Since the task of the prosecution is to prove guilt
beyond reasonable doubt, "not proven" seems a reasonable summary of
theopinion that the prosecution has failed to do so.
|
Why "not so"? I said nothing about what Scottish law *originally* said, I
referred to what Scottish law is *now*. And Scottish law *now* has three
verdicts available to the courts: guilty, not proven and not guilty.
| Quote: |
I'm not sure what the current situation is. I was once told the
following story: a jury believed that the case before them had been
brought for political reasons, and wanted to make a stronger statement
than "not proven", so they found the defendant "not guilty". I believe
that the jury now can find defendants either "not guilty" or "not
proven", but in both cases the defendant leaves the court without a
stain on his character.
|
Legally, yes, but not in practice because it implies the defendant was
unable to prove his innocence beyond reasonable doubt.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Donna Richoux
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2004 5:19 am
Post subject: Re: Past participle of stride - strode or stridden? |
|
|
Robert Lieblich <Robert.Lieblich@Verizon.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Donna Richoux wrote:
Steve Hayes <hayesmstw@hotmail.com> wrote:
But something similar has struck me - the displacement of "proved" by
"proven".
"Proven" has been around for a long time. In 1828, N. Webster said:
PROVEN, a word used by Scottish writers for proved.
Mastertexts shows "proven" used by Twain, London, A. Bronte, Conan
Doyle, Scott, and Stevenson. The last three were all born in Edinburgh.
Yeah, but there's "proven" the participle and "proven" used as an
attributive adjective -- "proven liar."
|
True, but I find it somehow interesting that so many English writers
coped without using "proven" in *any* sense. Austen, Carroll, Darwin,
Defoe, Dickens, Eliot, Hardy, Thackeray (just to name the biggest guns
in Mastertext) -- no instances of "proven" (in the works that Mastertext
indexes).
I just looked at the Bronte hit to see if was Scottish dialect or
anything. It wasn't, it was dialog spoken by the vicar who is just as
English as everybody else:
'And is that right, sir? Have I not proven to you
how wrong it is - how contrary to Scripture and to
reason, to teach a child to look with contempt and
disgust upon the blessings of Providence, instead of
to use them aright?'
So that's a past-particple "proven."
--
Best -- Donna Richoux |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Brader
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2004 5:58 am
Post subject: Re: Past participle of stride - strode or stridden? |
|
|
| Quote: | 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.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "Don't anthropomorphize evolution:
msb@vex.net It hates that." --John Freiler |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dylan Nicholson
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2004 7:47 am
Post subject: Re: Past participle of stride - strode or stridden? |
|
|
"Mark Brader" <msb@vex.net> wrote in message
news:10chtdogttsfaa@corp.supernews.com...
| Quote: | 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.
--
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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steve Hayes
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2004 12:57 pm
Post subject: Re: Past participle of stride - strode or stridden? |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 21:56:19 +0200, trio@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux) wrote:
| Quote: | Steve Hayes <hayesmstw@hotmail.com> wrote:
But something similar has struck me - the displacement of "proved" by
"proven".
"Proven" has been around for a long time. In 1828, N. Webster said:
PROVEN, a word used by Scottish writers for proved.
Mastertexts shows "proven" used by Twain, London, A. Bronte, Conan
Doyle, Scott, and Stevenson. The last three were all born in Edinburgh.
|
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".
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
david56
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2004 2:21 pm
Post subject: Re: Past participle of stride - strode or stridden? |
|
|
rewboss typed thus:
| Quote: | "Graeme Thomas" <graeme@graemet.demon.co.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:ZYNNBBAEuNyAFw4q@graemet.demon.co.uk...
In article <2irvj0Fpnpd5U1@uni-berlin.de>, rewboss <rewboss@rewboss.com
writes
Under Scottish law, there is a verdict of "not proven". This is given
when
there is not enough evidence for a "guilty" verdict, but the court is
pretty
damn sure the defendant is guilty. No sentence is passed, but the verdict
remains as a blemish on one's character.
Not so. Originally Scottish courts only had the verdicts "guilty" and
"not proven". Since the task of the prosecution is to prove guilt
beyond reasonable doubt, "not proven" seems a reasonable summary of
theopinion that the prosecution has failed to do so.
Why "not so"? I said nothing about what Scottish law *originally* said, I
referred to what Scottish law is *now*. And Scottish law *now* has three
verdicts available to the courts: guilty, not proven and not guilty.
I'm not sure what the current situation is. I was once told the
following story: a jury believed that the case before them had been
brought for political reasons, and wanted to make a stronger statement
than "not proven", so they found the defendant "not guilty". I believe
that the jury now can find defendants either "not guilty" or "not
proven", but in both cases the defendant leaves the court without a
stain on his character.
Legally, yes, but not in practice because it implies the defendant was
unable to prove his innocence beyond reasonable doubt.
|
It is a fundamental tenet of UK law that the defendant doesn't have
to prove anything. It's perfectly possible for a defendant to plead
Not Guilty, then offer no defence and answer no questions, but for
the prosecution to fail to prove his guilt. In England and Wales,
that is Not Guilty.
--
David
===== |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David McMurray
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2004 2:55 pm
Post subject: Re: Past participle of stride - strode or stridden? |
|
|
Mark Brader <msb@vex.net> wrote, in part:
| Quote: | 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Graeme Thomas
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2004 3:21 pm
Post subject: Re: Past participle of stride - strode or stridden? |
|
|
In article <2is7l9FqjjldU1@uni-berlin.de>, rewboss <rewboss@rewboss.com>
writes
| Quote: | 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.
| Quote: | I believe
that the jury now can find defendants either "not guilty" or "not
proven", but in both cases the defendant leaves the court without a
stain on his character.
Legally, yes, but not in practice because it implies the defendant was
unable to prove his innocence beyond reasonable doubt.
|
I don't think that the implication is valid. Some jurors will prefer a
verdict of "not proven" just because it's Scottish (and, even more so,
not English). Others will prefer "not guilty", for other reasons. The
jusge, in his summing up, will have given the jurors some idea of his
preferred verdict (between these two; it would be most improper for him
to recommend either a "guilty" or "innocent" verdict).
--
Graeme Thomas |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dr Robin Bignall
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2004 3:54 pm
Post subject: Re: Past participle of stride - strode or stridden? |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 09:21:45 +0100, david56 <bass.c.voice@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | rewboss typed thus:
"Graeme Thomas" <graeme@graemet.demon.co.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:ZYNNBBAEuNyAFw4q@graemet.demon.co.uk...
In article <2irvj0Fpnpd5U1@uni-berlin.de>, rewboss <rewboss@rewboss.com
writes
Under Scottish law, there is a verdict of "not proven". This is given
when
there is not enough evidence for a "guilty" verdict, but the court is
pretty
damn sure the defendant is guilty. No sentence is passed, but the verdict
remains as a blemish on one's character.
Not so. Originally Scottish courts only had the verdicts "guilty" and
"not proven". Since the task of the prosecution is to prove guilt
beyond reasonable doubt, "not proven" seems a reasonable summary of
theopinion that the prosecution has failed to do so.
Why "not so"? I said nothing about what Scottish law *originally* said, I
referred to what Scottish law is *now*. And Scottish law *now* has three
verdicts available to the courts: guilty, not proven and not guilty.
I'm not sure what the current situation is. I was once told the
following story: a jury believed that the case before them had been
brought for political reasons, and wanted to make a stronger statement
than "not proven", so they found the defendant "not guilty". I believe
that the jury now can find defendants either "not guilty" or "not
proven", but in both cases the defendant leaves the court without a
stain on his character.
Legally, yes, but not in practice because it implies the defendant was
unable to prove his innocence beyond reasonable doubt.
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.
|
In Scotland, that would probably lead to a 'not proven' verdict. In the UK
there are a lot of people who, without too much thought of whether or not
it could happen to them, think that there's no smoke without fire, and that
if the police and prosecutors go so far as to arrest a person and charge
him, he must have done *something* to be in that position. Mud sticks, and
the practice here is that regardless of what is believed by the credulous
about 'innocent before being proved guilty', people have in practice to
prove their innocence. The Sally Clarke case (her book is being serialised
in The Times at the moment, and a consultant is on trial for accusing her
husband of murder after seeing a programme on the telly) is possibly one of
the most blatant examples of England being a thinly-disguised police state
that I've ever seen.
--
wrmst rgrds
Robin Bignall
Hertfordshire
England |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David Picton
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2004 3:56 pm
Post subject: Re: Past participle of stride - strode or stridden? |
|
|
Daniel James <wastebasket@nospam.aaisp.org> wrote in message news:<VA.00000713.0ebbad9f@nospam.aaisp.org>...
| Quote: | In article news:<2ad9e934.0406090852.72bc062@posting.google.com>,
David Picton wrote:
According to most dictionaries, the past participle of stride
is definitely stridden: I strode, I had stridden. An exception
is the OED which also lists strode as a 'colloquial' past
participle.
The question is complicated by the existence of "strided" - which
my dictionary doesn't even mention.
"Strided" is properly a past tense - a weak alternative to "strode" - but is
also (mis)used as a past participle.
|
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'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dr Robin Bignall
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2004 6:09 pm
Post subject: Re: Past participle of stride - strode or stridden? |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 10:21:55 +0100, Graeme Thomas
<graeme@graemet.demon.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: | In article <2is7l9FqjjldU1@uni-berlin.de>, rewboss <rewboss@rewboss.com
writes
Why "not so"? I said nothing about what Scottish law *originally* said, I
referred to what Scottish law is *now*. And Scottish law *now* has three
verdicts available to the courts: guilty, not proven and not guilty.
True. But I don't think that the jury's choice between "not proven" and
"not guilty" depends much on the perceived innocence of the defendant.
I believe
that the jury now can find defendants either "not guilty" or "not
proven", but in both cases the defendant leaves the court without a
stain on his character.
Legally, yes, but not in practice because it implies the defendant was
unable to prove his innocence beyond reasonable doubt.
I don't think that the implication is valid. Some jurors will prefer a
verdict of "not proven" just because it's Scottish (and, even more so,
not English). Others will prefer "not guilty", for other reasons. The
jusge, in his summing up, will have given the jurors some idea of his
preferred verdict (between these two; it would be most improper for him
to recommend either a "guilty" or "innocent" verdict).
|
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.
--
wrmst rgrds
Robin Bignall
Hertfordshire
England |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rewboss
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2004 6:22 pm
Post subject: Re: Past participle of stride - strode or stridden? |
|
|
"david56" <bass.c.voice@ntlworld.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:MPG.1b337beff73434da98a510@news.individual.net...
| Quote: | rewboss typed thus:
"Graeme Thomas" <graeme@graemet.demon.co.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:ZYNNBBAEuNyAFw4q@graemet.demon.co.uk...
In article <2irvj0Fpnpd5U1@uni-berlin.de>, rewboss
rewboss@rewboss.com
writes
Under Scottish law, there is a verdict of "not proven". This is given
when
there is not enough evidence for a "guilty" verdict, but the court is
pretty
damn sure the defendant is guilty. No sentence is passed, but the
verdict
remains as a blemish on one's character.
Not so. Originally Scottish courts only had the verdicts "guilty" and
"not proven". Since the task of the prosecution is to prove guilt
beyond reasonable doubt, "not proven" seems a reasonable summary of
theopinion that the prosecution has failed to do so.
Why "not so"? I said nothing about what Scottish law *originally* said,
I
referred to what Scottish law is *now*. And Scottish law *now* has three
verdicts available to the courts: guilty, not proven and not guilty.
I'm not sure what the current situation is. I was once told the
following story: a jury believed that the case before them had been
brought for political reasons, and wanted to make a stronger statement
than "not proven", so they found the defendant "not guilty". I
believe
that the jury now can find defendants either "not guilty" or "not
proven", but in both cases the defendant leaves the court without a
stain on his character.
Legally, yes, but not in practice because it implies the defendant was
unable to prove his innocence beyond reasonable doubt.
It is a fundamental tenet of UK law that the defendant doesn't have
to prove anything. It's perfectly possible for a defendant to plead
Not Guilty, then offer no defence and answer no questions, but for
the prosecution to fail to prove his guilt. In England and Wales,
that is Not Guilty.
|
What do you mean by "UK law"? There is English law and there is Scottish
law, and the two are very different -- as many an English company signing
contracts with a Scottish company has found to its cost. What you describe
is English law (which also operates in Wales).
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Areff
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2004 7:33 pm
Post subject: Re: Past participle of stride - strode or stridden? |
|
|
rewboss wrote:
| Quote: | "david56" <bass.c.voice@ntlworld.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:MPG.1b337beff73434da98a510@news.individual.net...
It is a fundamental tenet of UK law that the defendant doesn't have
to prove anything. It's perfectly possible for a defendant to plead
Not Guilty, then offer no defence and answer no questions, but for
the prosecution to fail to prove his guilt. In England and Wales,
that is Not Guilty.
What do you mean by "UK law"? There is English law and there is Scottish
law, and the two are very different -- as many an English company signing
contracts with a Scottish company has found to its cost. What you describe
is English law (which also operates in Wales).
|
But is it not the case in both English law and Scottish (= rbaniste1E
'Scotch') law the situation is as David56 states -- the burden of proof
(presumably, in both places, beyond reasonable doubt [= AmE 'beyond *a*
reasonable doubt']) is on the prosecution? If so, it seems reasonable to
me to speak of "UK law".
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.
-- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in