I have just annoyed youngest daughter by proving that a strong preterite and past participle of snow (snew/snown) exist. Don't know if either is used outside the UK.
I have never known either of them to be used IN the UK! But then, I have only lived in the south of England and Yorkshire - there's plenty of other areas.
I have just annoyed youngest daughter by proving that a strong preterite and past participle of snow (snew/snown) exist. Don't know if either is used outside the UK.
I have never known either of them to be used IN the UK! But then, I have only lived in the south of England and Yorkshire - there's plenty of other areas.
I have just annoyed youngest daughter by proving that a strong preterite and past participle of snow (snew/snown) exist. Don't know if either is used outside the UK.
I have never known either of them to be used IN the UK! But then, I have only lived in the south of England and Yorkshire - there's plenty of other areas.
When I was young, I recall "snew" being used as another word for a particular form of "snot" - mucous dangling from the nose. Thus "snew on you", which was the childhood act of pretending to pick your nose and wiping it off on another child. Or at least pretending to.
US usage, I think, means that it is only a matter of debate, and of no practical significance.
As it does here, debatable but irrelevant, and used do the same in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (can't speak of Scotland). I don't know where Eirenist gets that interpretation from. It's also used in the mock trial sense mentioned by others.
'Moot' definitely does not mean 'irrelevant' here. If you use it that way, you are setting yourself up to be misunderstood. It means 'debatable' or 'uncertain'. The only context in which a person might construe it to imply irrelevance is if you're referring to something that is collateral to the main issue and that you might be able to get away with leaving it undecided.
I've not encountered snew as the past tense of snow, but it could well exist. If it does, it sounds as though it would fit with a Norfolk accent. I have heard and used snown as the participle. Saying both in my head, I've realised I'm not quite sure whether 'snowed' or 'snown' is the one that's actually correct but the spell-checker says 'snowed'.
Noting that I have never been able to tolerate an entire episode of Friends....
Are we into the same different that "to table" and "tabling" a motion means? Where, depending on where you live, may mean to start discussing it, to set it aside and never discuss it, or to talk about it later at another meeting. The last one is how it is used where I'm on a couple of boards, usually said as "can we table that for next month?"
Are we into the same different that "to table" and "tabling" a motion means? Where, depending on where you live, may mean to start discussing it, to set it aside and never discuss it, or to talk about it later at another meeting. The last one is how it is used where I'm on a couple of boards, usually said as "can we table that for next month?"
Yes, in the UK, "to table a motion" is to place it on the table for discussion. In the US, it is to remove it from discussion (and put it back on a table?) What is Canadian standard?
As far as I know, we're encouraged to not use "table" unless we explain what we mean when we say it. Kind of like we spell things both color and colour, traveled and travelled, though paycheque never paycheck, tire never tyre.
A irksome issue is that typically we find no Canadian English spell check or usage in most computer programs. The absolute worst is dates. I read medical reports which will say 1/12/2020 and 12/1/2020. Which are either the same date or almost a year apart. Thus we are encouraged to use 2020-12-01 which is the federal gov't usage. I usually handwrite write 01 Dec 2020 for max clarity.
These kind of words are called contranyms. Moot, table (v.), sanction--they have two meanings that contradict one another. So freaking obnoxious, as you're basically at risk for being misunderstood every time you use them.
'Moot' definitely does not mean 'irrelevant' here. If you use it that way, you are setting yourself up to be misunderstood. It means 'debatable' or 'uncertain'. The only context in which a person might construe it to imply irrelevance is if you're referring to something that is collateral to the main issue and that you might be able to get away with leaving it undecided.
In my understanding (more a UK civil service usage than a regional one), when someone says "That's a moot point" they mean 'Well, people may argue about that , but it's not relevant to this discussion.'
There are quite a few English contranyms having played around with a photographic challenge using them. Are trimmings the bits you cut off fabric or meat (or hair) or the things you use to decorate the same? Do you dust the kitchen surface to add flour for rolling out pastry, or to remove the dust? Have you left the room or are you left behind in the same room?
I usually handwrite write 01 Dec 2020 for max clarity.
Yes - my practice is to name the month, like you do here, to avoid any possible confusion. (whilst ISO 8601-style dates are unlikely to cause confusion, they also IMO don't map naturally to the way people usually think. They're great for computer use, to make it easy to sort things in time order, but not so great for humans.)
Noting that I have never been able to tolerate an entire episode of Friends....
Yeah, it's pretty cheesy, but there are a few bits from it that stick in my head forever, and Joey explaining "a moo point" will always be one of them. #NoRegrets
Noting that I have never been able to tolerate an entire episode of Friends....
Yeah, it's pretty cheesy, but there are a few bits from it that stick in my head forever, and Joey explaining "a moo point" will always be one of them. #NoRegrets
I realize now that that joke in particular doesn't translate for people from the UK if they have a completely different meaning for "moot." Just one more example of how much humour is tied to specific word meanings/connotations. Until this discussion I didn't even know there was a different meaning for "moot."
Are we into the same different that "to table" and "tabling" a motion means? Where, depending on where you live, may mean to start discussing it, to set it aside and never discuss it, or to talk about it later at another meeting. The last one is how it is used where I'm on a couple of boards, usually said as "can we table that for next month?"
Yes, in the UK, "to table a motion" is to place it on the table for discussion. In the US, it is to remove it from discussion (and put it back on a table?) What is Canadian standard?
In Canadian Presbyterian practice there can be a motion to place a motion under discussion on the table for a number of reasons - unsuitable timing, insufficient information etc. Later, or at a later meeting there can be a motion to lift it it from the table and resume discussion.
I'm fascinated to learn there is a different, North American meaning of moot. When I was in Canada, years ago, a friend there used the expression 'a moot point,' and at the time I thought she must not understand the meaning of the term. I didn't question it, because she was talking about a sensitive topic in her life, but the British meaning would have meant something she definitely wasn't saying. It simply didn't occur to me there was another meaning.
In Canada, a practice trial between legal students is called a moot trial.
I have heard it a few times in the United States, but generally, our term is a "mock" trial
I've heard the phrase "moot court" rather than "moot trial".
A “moot court,” at least as the term is used in American law schools and among American attorneys in my experience, is a mock or practice appellate argument—nothing but legal arguments with questions from the bench. They can happen in law school with hypothetical cases, and law schools almost always have moot court teams that compete with teams from other schools. Or they can happen as practice runs for lawyers with real cases. In many law offices, moot courts are routine before appellate arguments, especially for major cases or for lawyers without much appellate argument experience.
In either case, you’ll have at least three experienced lawyers (or perhaps actual judges in the law school context) who’ll act as judges and pepper the students or lawyers with questions.
A “mock trial” (I’ve never heard anyone say “moot trial”) is a practice trial, with witnesses, objections, jury arguments, etc. Volunteers take the parts of witnesses and jurors, and the trial advocacy instructor generally acts as judge.
In Canada, a practice trial between legal students is called a moot trial.
I have heard it a few times in the United States, but generally, our term is a "mock" trial
I've heard the phrase "moot court" rather than "moot trial".
That's the phrase here.
As to Nick Tamen's post, moot courts are a lot easier to organise and present than are mock trials. A moot court gives a set of facts upon which argument can be presented. A mock trial requires pretty good actors to learn a part well enough to be cross-examined in their evidence, something far from easy. Judges and senior members of the bar are usually very generous in donating their time to moots, with a half-decent glass of red over the chat afterwards as the reward.
I've never heard of running a mock appeal as preparation for the real event. It probably would not work in those States with a separate Bar, because barristers are self-employed specialist advocates.
Sometimes, a mock trial is run as part of a focus group. A company that runs focus groups (about ads, products, possible TV shows, etc.) is hired to gather a lot of people as a mock jury pool. The mock trial ensues, and the mock jury evaluates it.
Strictly speaking, 'mock trial' and 'mock court' seem to be tautologous. 'Moot' is of course from the same root as 'meet', and a 'moot' in Anglo-Saxon England was a formal meeting where a point could be argued.
[I've never heard of running a mock appeal as preparation for the real event. It probably would not work in those States with a separate Bar, because barristers are self-employed specialist advocates.
I can see how that might be a problem. The distinction between solicitors and barristers/advocates doesn’t exist anywhere in the US.
[I've never heard of running a mock appeal as preparation for the real event. It probably would not work in those States with a separate Bar, because barristers are self-employed specialist advocates.
I can see how that might be a problem. The distinction between solicitors and barristers/advocates doesn’t exist anywhere in the US.
Except in official titles. For instance, while we have an Attorney General over the Justice Department, we have a Solicitor General within the Department of Justice to argue the government's position before the Supreme Court.
[I've never heard of running a mock appeal as preparation for the real event. It probably would not work in those States with a separate Bar, because barristers are self-employed specialist advocates.
I can see how that might be a problem. The distinction between solicitors and barristers/advocates doesn’t exist anywhere in the US.
Except in official titles. For instance, while we have an Attorney General over the Justice Department, we have a Solicitor General within the Department of Justice to argue the government's position before the Supreme Court.
Yes, but that usage doesn’t reflect the distinction between solicitors and barristers/advocates found in many other countries. That distinction disappeared in the US over a century ago.
Rather, it reflects a particularly American use of “solicitor” to mean an attorney who represents the government, particularly the chief attorney for a governmental entity. That is the sense in which it is used in titles such as Solicitor General.
There's also attorney and lawyer. I don't hear attorney in my province..
But those are synonymous, at least in the states—two different words for the same thing. Both are heard and are used interchangeably here. Solicitor and barrister/advocate are not different terms for the same thing in those jurisdictions that maintain a distinction between them.
Wasn't sure. They're all lawyers here. Prosecutors are called either just prosecutors or 'crown prosecutors'. I believe the term attorney and crown attorney are used in some provinces after taking a look.
If you really want to show off and demonstrate that you are a true pedant, an attorney practised in the three common law courts, King's/Queen's Bench, Exchequer and Common Pleas. A solicitor practised in the Court of Chancery. A procter practised in the courts of Probate, Divorce and Admiralty. They prepared pleadings etc. None of them actually appeared before a judge in those courts. That was done by barrister.
These days in England and Wales, the normal term for the person you actually go to see is a Solicitor. It is solicitors who draft and negotiate agreements. Barristers are specialist advocates, and are the only people allowed to present a case on behalf of somebody else in the higher courts. Rather like consultants in other disciplines, they take their instructions from solicitors.
Solicitors can appear in the lower courts, public enquiries and tribunals. They also practice together in firms. Barristers are not allowed to practice in firms and are self-employed.
Since the 1990 Courts and Legal Services Act, solicitors can qualify for a grant of rights of audience in UK higher courts as solicitor advocates. They can even be appointed as Queen’s Counsel.
Okay--you have someone who has the power to make health decisions on your behalf should you be unable to make them for yourself. What do you call that document?
Okay--you have someone who has the power to make health decisions on your behalf should you be unable to make them for yourself. What do you call that document?
In England, probably what you're looking for is a lasting power of attorney, which has replaced the enduring power of attorney. An LPA must be registered with the Office of the Public Guardian before you can use it; EPAs did not require registration.
(As I recall, EPAs didn't cover health and welfare issues, but LPAs do. I'm certain we have Uk shipmates with experience of these who can put me right, though.)
Okay--you have someone who has the power to make health decisions on your behalf should you be unable to make them for yourself. What do you call that document?
That’s one of those things that can, I think, vary by state in the US. Where I live it’s a health care power of attorney.
I like "lasting" power of attorney. In the States (or at least this one) it's called "durable" power of attorney. Looks like they can't decide what to call it.
[I've never heard of running a mock appeal as preparation for the real event. It probably would not work in those States with a separate Bar, because barristers are self-employed specialist advocates.
I can see how that might be a problem. The distinction between solicitors and barristers/advocates doesn’t exist anywhere in the US.
Except in official titles. For instance, while we have an Attorney General over the Justice Department, we have a Solicitor General within the Department of Justice to argue the government's position before the Supreme Court.
Yes, but that usage doesn’t reflect the distinction between solicitors and barristers/advocates found in many other countries. That distinction disappeared in the US over a century ago.
Rather, it reflects a particularly American use of “solicitor” to mean an attorney who represents the government, particularly the chief attorney for a governmental entity. That is the sense in which it is used in titles such as Solicitor General.
Yes, I appreciate that there is no specialist bar in the US, although I'd imagine that a biggish law firm would have partners and employees who specialised in appearance work.
I think that as well as the Federal government, all Australian States, and perhaps now also the Territories, have a position of Solicitor-General as well as Attorney-General. It's a bit of an anomaly as, despite the name, the Solicitor General is a senior barrister appointed to the position to both represent the government in the most important cases and give advice. The Attorney-General is an elected politician, usually a lawyer and maybe even a senior one, but not always.
I should have made it more clear that the various Solicitors-General here are not politicians, but statutory appointments. Is that the position in the UK?
I like "lasting" power of attorney. In the States (or at least this one) it's called "durable" power of attorney. Looks like they can't decide what to call it.
A durable power-of-attorney and a health care power-of-attorney are different things—similar, but different— at least where I live.
A health care power of attorney allows your attorney-in-fact to make medical decisions for you should you not be able to make them for yourself because you’re in a coma or the like.
As for a durable power-of-attorney, a traditional power-of-attorney, which can extend to all kinds matters—financial, property, etc.—became void if and when the person who executed it became incompetent, on the basis that they lost the power to revoke it. At that stage, a guardian had to be appointed by the court to handle matters that previously could be done by the attorney-in-fact. A durable power-of-attorney is “durable” in the sense that it survives the incompetence of the executor.
As I say, in this state they are two separate things. It’s possible, though, that in some states they’re rolled up into one.
There are variations on this theme with important differences. My wife is the health care proxy for her mother in New York, but it is clear that this is different from power of attorney (https://www.health.ny.gov/publications/1430.pdf). We don't yet know if or how it works across international borders.
I should have made it more clear that the various Solicitors-General here are not politicians, but statutory appointments. Is that the position in the UK?
I should have made it more clear that the various Solicitors-General here are not politicians, but statutory appointments. Is that the position in the UK?
Comments
My informant is from Norfolk.
When I was young, I recall "snew" being used as another word for a particular form of "snot" - mucous dangling from the nose. Thus "snew on you", which was the childhood act of pretending to pick your nose and wiping it off on another child. Or at least pretending to.
As it does here, debatable but irrelevant, and used do the same in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (can't speak of Scotland). I don't know where Eirenist gets that interpretation from. It's also used in the mock trial sense mentioned by others.
Here "that's a moot point" means "it doesn't matter."
MMM
I'm with the US on this one.
I've not encountered snew as the past tense of snow, but it could well exist. If it does, it sounds as though it would fit with a Norfolk accent. I have heard and used snown as the participle. Saying both in my head, I've realised I'm not quite sure whether 'snowed' or 'snown' is the one that's actually correct but the spell-checker says 'snowed'.
Are we into the same different that "to table" and "tabling" a motion means? Where, depending on where you live, may mean to start discussing it, to set it aside and never discuss it, or to talk about it later at another meeting. The last one is how it is used where I'm on a couple of boards, usually said as "can we table that for next month?"
Yes, in the UK, "to table a motion" is to place it on the table for discussion. In the US, it is to remove it from discussion (and put it back on a table?) What is Canadian standard?
A irksome issue is that typically we find no Canadian English spell check or usage in most computer programs. The absolute worst is dates. I read medical reports which will say 1/12/2020 and 12/1/2020. Which are either the same date or almost a year apart. Thus we are encouraged to use 2020-12-01 which is the federal gov't usage. I usually handwrite write 01 Dec 2020 for max clarity.
In my understanding (more a UK civil service usage than a regional one), when someone says "That's a moot point" they mean 'Well, people may argue about that , but it's not relevant to this discussion.'
There are quite a few English contranyms having played around with a photographic challenge using them. Are trimmings the bits you cut off fabric or meat (or hair) or the things you use to decorate the same? Do you dust the kitchen surface to add flour for rolling out pastry, or to remove the dust? Have you left the room or are you left behind in the same room?
Yes - my practice is to name the month, like you do here, to avoid any possible confusion. (whilst ISO 8601-style dates are unlikely to cause confusion, they also IMO don't map naturally to the way people usually think. They're great for computer use, to make it easy to sort things in time order, but not so great for humans.)
Flammable and inflammable come to mind. Though both mean burnable, so an "anti-contranym"? I'm also thinking of the oft-heard "unthaw".
Yeah, it's pretty cheesy, but there are a few bits from it that stick in my head forever, and Joey explaining "a moo point" will always be one of them. #NoRegrets
I could never understand it.
In Canadian Presbyterian practice there can be a motion to place a motion under discussion on the table for a number of reasons - unsuitable timing, insufficient information etc. Later, or at a later meeting there can be a motion to lift it it from the table and resume discussion.
I have heard it a few times in the United States, but generally, our term is a "mock" trial
I've heard the phrase "moot court" rather than "moot trial".
In either case, you’ll have at least three experienced lawyers (or perhaps actual judges in the law school context) who’ll act as judges and pepper the students or lawyers with questions.
A “mock trial” (I’ve never heard anyone say “moot trial”) is a practice trial, with witnesses, objections, jury arguments, etc. Volunteers take the parts of witnesses and jurors, and the trial advocacy instructor generally acts as judge.
That's the phrase here.
As to Nick Tamen's post, moot courts are a lot easier to organise and present than are mock trials. A moot court gives a set of facts upon which argument can be presented. A mock trial requires pretty good actors to learn a part well enough to be cross-examined in their evidence, something far from easy. Judges and senior members of the bar are usually very generous in donating their time to moots, with a half-decent glass of red over the chat afterwards as the reward.
I've never heard of running a mock appeal as preparation for the real event. It probably would not work in those States with a separate Bar, because barristers are self-employed specialist advocates.
Except in official titles. For instance, while we have an Attorney General over the Justice Department, we have a Solicitor General within the Department of Justice to argue the government's position before the Supreme Court.
Rather, it reflects a particularly American use of “solicitor” to mean an attorney who represents the government, particularly the chief attorney for a governmental entity. That is the sense in which it is used in titles such as Solicitor General.
These days in England and Wales, the normal term for the person you actually go to see is a Solicitor. It is solicitors who draft and negotiate agreements. Barristers are specialist advocates, and are the only people allowed to present a case on behalf of somebody else in the higher courts. Rather like consultants in other disciplines, they take their instructions from solicitors.
Solicitors can appear in the lower courts, public enquiries and tribunals. They also practice together in firms. Barristers are not allowed to practice in firms and are self-employed.
Follow up questions may follow.
In England, probably what you're looking for is a lasting power of attorney, which has replaced the enduring power of attorney. An LPA must be registered with the Office of the Public Guardian before you can use it; EPAs did not require registration.
(As I recall, EPAs didn't cover health and welfare issues, but LPAs do. I'm certain we have Uk shipmates with experience of these who can put me right, though.)
Yes, I appreciate that there is no specialist bar in the US, although I'd imagine that a biggish law firm would have partners and employees who specialised in appearance work.
I think that as well as the Federal government, all Australian States, and perhaps now also the Territories, have a position of Solicitor-General as well as Attorney-General. It's a bit of an anomaly as, despite the name, the Solicitor General is a senior barrister appointed to the position to both represent the government in the most important cases and give advice. The Attorney-General is an elected politician, usually a lawyer and maybe even a senior one, but not always.
A health care power of attorney allows your attorney-in-fact to make medical decisions for you should you not be able to make them for yourself because you’re in a coma or the like.
As for a durable power-of-attorney, a traditional power-of-attorney, which can extend to all kinds matters—financial, property, etc.—became void if and when the person who executed it became incompetent, on the basis that they lost the power to revoke it. At that stage, a guardian had to be appointed by the court to handle matters that previously could be done by the attorney-in-fact. A durable power-of-attorney is “durable” in the sense that it survives the incompetence of the executor.
As I say, in this state they are two separate things. It’s possible, though, that in some states they’re rolled up into one.
They are political appointments in the UK.
Can you explain this a little more?