Were you surprised by the Zimmerman verdict

[AGBF]

Well, ME, of course.

Actually, it is I.

Deb

 

[ksinger]

Well, ME, of course.

Actually, it is I.

Deb

Strictly speaking, I suppose. But, as we have been discussing, common usage is what makes something "correct" that once was not, usually creeping (or in the case of the internet now, hurtling) into written English after a long time stubbornly refusing to budge from spoken English. I tend to write as I speak, and I challenge you to say "I" in my statement above, and not sound hopelessly priggish.

Besides, that doesn't bother me nearly as much as the complete death in the last 15 year or so, of almost all the adverbs in American English.

 

[AGBF]

Well, ME, of course.

Actually, it is I.

I tend to write as I speak, and I challenge you to say "I" in my statement above, and not sound hopelessly priggish.

Uh...sticks and stone will breaks my bones, but....

I do say, "It is I " and "It is she". I would have said, "I" above; and if you insist on calling me "priggish" I will have to live with it.


Deb

 

[ksinger]

Well, ME, of course.

Actually, it is I.

I tend to write as I speak, and I challenge you to say "I" in my statement above, and not sound hopelessly priggish.

Uh...sticks and stone will breaks my bones, but....

I do say, "It is I " and "It is she". I would have said, "I" above; and if you insist on calling me "priggish" I will have to live with it.


Deb

Alas, the dangers of correcting someone's English in a public forum.

 

[kenny]

Well, ME, of course.

Actually, it is I.

I tend to write as I speak, and I challenge you to say "I" in my statement above, and not sound hopelessly priggish.

Uh...sticks and stone will breaks my bones, but....

I do say, "It is I " and "It is she". I would have said, "I" above; and if you insist on calling me "priggish" I will have to live with it.


Deb

Alas, the dangers of correcting someone's English in a public forum.

I believe it's "on" a public forum.

 

[momhappy]

Sure, I'll agree that there may be some confusion over the exact definition of the term "cracker" but I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that when TM was calling GZ a "cracker", he wasn't referring to him as a crunchy snack food or a style of house in Louisiana....... It's all about context.

 

[momhappy]

I'm sorry for not understanding, but you have to understand that this hijacked, beaten-up, mangled-beyond-repair version of English that you insist on calling English is a form of the language that I have never encountered in 32 years of living in the British Isles. I literally have no idea what most people are talking about on this continent, so I have limited ability to understand, well, anything here.

Let's be fair! Just because American English has developed differently doesn't mean it's mangled. I had also never heard of the term "cracker" until recently, so it was very fascinating to learn about the etymology.

Brits also have their own terms that are virtually gibberish to people overseas. Some examples? "Fit", "toff", "yob", "Chav", "stroppy" etc. I just happen to know a bunch of them as I read the Daily Mail as a guilty pleasure.

So do the Aussies, the Canadians, the Indians, and the ex-Brit colonies. English belongs to all of us, and in the end, we should remember it was a big hodge-lodge to begin with, cobbled together from Old Norse, Anglo-Saxon, Latin, French, German vocabulary.

I am neither American or English but English is my first language and I enjoy it in all its forms.

Excuse me for this detour from the Zimmerman case! If I have anything to add, it's only to say that the problem of crime, safety and race is very complex in the States. I have had friends visiting me in Canada who felt totally safe roaming the city at night and then felt very unsafe after crossing the border to American cities. If people don't feel sale in their own neighborhoods, I think it is very hard to say ban guns or to tell them not to take action to protect their community. This was a great tragedy.

I like the detour from the Zimmerman case

 

[CaprineSun]

I didn't want to post here as to not get as involved as last time and get upset over the comments after discovering who some of the fellow PSers really are (especially in light of several other threads posted in the past few weeks, which I chose to stay out of). I was livid when he was not arrested for 44 days after killing an unarmed boy HE pursued, and the boy who likely had to defend himself from him. Just WRONG. However, I am deeply saddened by the verdict for what I feel Zimmerman DID illegally kill a boy. BUT, I can agree that clear evidence was not there to convict on 2nd degree, so no surprise there. Manslaughter, however? I thought was doable for a conviction. A hope. But, still I can see how that wasn't. I'm just glad he was at least tried. I'm infuriated by comments stating it was only due to racial pressure/media pressure/people just wanting a story, while rolling their eyes. As if putting a man who killed a boy on trial shouldn't have been done in of itself? Kidding me?! It's sad any type of pressure was needed at ALL.

Without going into it any further and leaving this as my only post in this thread (although I have so much more to say to some ), I offer the following video, in which he says pretty much how I feel on this, why it is all upsetting --- especially those who applauded Zimmerman getting away with killing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtcveaMUJSI

 

[AGBF]

I was livid when he was not arrested for 44 days after killing an unarmed boy HE pursued, and the boy who likely had to defend himself from him.

One of the most e-mailed articles, if not the most e-mailed, article, in "The New York Times" today is an Op-Ed piece by Charles M. Blow which is really hard to read. Excerpts are below.


"In a way, the not-guilty verdict in the trial of George Zimmerman for his killing of Trayvon Martin was more powerful than a guilty verdict could ever have been.

(snip)

This is not to dispute the jury’s finding — one can intellectually rationalize the decision — as much as it is to howl at the moon, to yearn for a brighter reality for the politics around dark bodies, to raise a voice and say, this case is a rallying call, not a death dirge.

The system began to fail Martin long before that night.

The system failed him when Florida’s self-defense laws were written, allowing an aggressor to claim self-defense in the middle of an altercation — and to use deadly force in that defense — with no culpability for his role in the events that led to that point.

The system failed him because of the disproportionate force that he and the neighborhood watchman could legally bring to the altercation — Zimmerman could legally carry a concealed firearm, while Martin, who was only 17, could not.

The system failed him when the neighborhood watchman grafted on stereotypes the moment he saw him, ascribing motive and behavior and intent and criminal history to a boy who was just walking home.

The system failed him when the bullet ripped through his chest, and the man who shot him said he mounted him and stretched his arms out wide, preventing him from even clutching the spot that hurt.

The system failed him in those moments just after he was shot when he was surely aware that he was about to die, but before life’s light fully passed from his body — and no one came to comfort him or try to save him.

The system failed him when the slapdash Sanford police did a horrible job of collecting and preserving evidence.

The system failed him when those officers apparently didn’t even value his dead body enough to adequately canvass the complex to make sure that no one was missing a teen.

The system failed him when he was labeled a John Doe and his lifeless body spent the night alone and unclaimed.

The system failed him when the man who the police found standing over the body of a dead teenager, a man who admitted to shooting him and still had the weapon, was taken in for questioning and then allowed to walk out of the precinct without an arrest or even a charge, to go home after taking a life and take to his bed.

The system failed him when it took more than 40 days and an outpouring of national outrage to get an arrest.

The system failed him when a strangely homogenous jury — who may well have been Zimmerman’s peers but were certainly not the peers of the teenager, who was in effect being tried in absentia — was seated.

The system failed him when the prosecution put on a case for the Martin family that many court-watchers found wanting.

The system failed him when the discussion about bias became so reductive as to be either-or rather than about situational fluidity and the possibility of varying responses to varying levels of perceived threat.

The system failed him when everyone in the courtroom raised racial bias in roundabout ways, but almost never directly — for example, when the defense held up a picture of a shirtless Martin and told the jurors that this was the person Zimmerman encountered the night he shot him. But in fact it was not the way Zimmerman had seen Martin. Consciously or subconsciously, the defense played on an old racial trope: asking the all-female jury — mostly white — to fear the image of the glistening black buck, as Zimmerman had.

This case is not about an extraordinary death of an extraordinary person. Unfortunately, in America, people are lost to gun violence every day. Many of them look like Martin and have parents who presumably grieve for them. This case is about extraordinary inequality in the presumption of innocence and the application of justice: why was Martin deemed suspicious and why was his killer allowed to go home?

Sometimes people just need a focal point. Sometimes that focal point becomes a breaking point.

The idea of universal suspicion without individual evidence is what Americans find abhorrent and what black men in America must constantly fight. It is pervasive in policing policies — like stop-and-frisk, and in this case neighborhood watch — regardless of the collateral damage done to the majority of innocents. It’s like burning down a house to rid it of mice.

As a parent, particularly a parent of black teenage boys, I am left with the question, 'Now, what do I tell my boys?'

We used to say not to run in public because that might be seen as suspicious, like they’d stolen something. But according to Zimmerman, Martin drew his suspicion at least in part because he was walking too slowly.

So what do I tell my boys now? At what precise pace should a black man walk to avoid suspicion?

And can they ever stop walking away, or running away, and simply stand their ground? Can they become righteously indignant without being fatally wounded?

Is there anyplace safe enough, or any cargo innocent enough, for a black man in this country? Martin was where he was supposed to be — in a gated community — carrying candy and a canned drink.

The whole system failed Martin. What prevents it from failing my children, or yours?

I feel that I must tell my boys that, but I can’t. It’s stuck in my throat. It’s an impossibly heartbreaking conversation to have. So, I sit and watch in silence, and occasionally mouth the word, 'breathe,' because I keep forgetting to."

AGBF

 

[CaprineSun]

Excellent article. Thank you, AGBF. I hadn't seen it.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Deb...look at it this way, had GZ shot a Chinese teenager there wouldn't even be an arrest made nor a trial. GZ was put through the American justice system and was found not guilty, so let it be. Why must left-wingers keep on adding fuel to fire causing more violence all over our country?

 

[AGBF]

Why must left-wingers keep on adding fuel to fire causing more violence all over our country?

I'm not going to claim "left-wing" status here, but if you want right-wing status, I'll grant it to you. I think you have a nerve to say that I am contributing to violence, though. I am not the one supporting the use of guns by civilians in places other than their homes.

Don't ask me why I am appalled that things in the United States are so badly broken that an innocent teenage boy was shot dead by a vigilante legally carrying a gun around on property that was not his own and that others cheered that verdict. Until the problem is fixed, I have a problem. America has a problem. Black people know it. The NAACP knows it. (I mention that only because I am a member and get all their e-mails.) Charles M Blow knows it. You say the right-wing doesn't know it? I say that they must, then, willfully not know it. Because knowing it would not coincide with their interests.

AGBF

 

[JewelFreak]

Hey, let's not forget that he was not an "innocent" boy by any means. He got GZ on the ground & was beating the crap out of him. His final threat was, "You're gonna die tonight M...F.." as he reached for GZ's gun; whether or not he actually was able to touch it does not mitigate the fear that must have inspired. His phone had multiple pics of guns, tweets about fights & smoking dope.

The photo with almost every article was one of TM at TWELVE years old, looking small & innocent, & of GZ after he gained 100 pounds through stress-eating after the fact, looking big & bully-ish. Attempts -- which worked, I can see, to manipulate the public's view.

Why should "walk away" not apply to TM? When asked by neighborhood watch what he was doing, why should he not be expected to say, "I'm going to my dad's house"? What's so darned hard about that?

Nothing about the kid says "innocent" to me. But people vary, as we say in the old country.

--- Laurie

 

[LaraOnline]

It is heart-breaking and mind-boggling that such a very unfortunate series of events was set in motion that evening in Sanford. I was torn in my opinion of the verdict. I feel that Zimmerman should have not been following Martin in the first place, but following someone shouldn't result in having your head bashed into the pavement. Both exercised very poor judgment, but Zimmerman was the adult while Martin was only 17. At 17, many of my peers (and possibly myself) were still dispensing shaving cream on golf courses and lighting dog doo doo on porches. I thank my lucky stars that the worst consequence we ever received was the march-of-shame we had to take to our respective parents' homes when we were caught red-handed with t.p. one Halloween.

I deeply question the right to carry firearms. I'm in Texas, and both my husband and I are licensed to carry, but the only time a firearm leaves our home is whenever we take a long road trip. I truly believe that if Zimmerman had not been carrying that night, he probably would never have followed Martin in the first place. I think knowing he had access to a weapon made him feel more secure confronting someone. I'm not saying he was planning on using it; I just think that knowing its there provides a sense of security that can possibly override common sense (as in don't follow a seemingly "threatening" character on a rain evening).

Well said. I have felt more secure carrying in the past (my folks gave me a taser at 14). But in retrospect? That didn't level the playing field. It just exaggerated it in the other direction. Mrs J is right. These things should carry more weight.

Interesting conversation. Of course, my eyes bugged out of my head at the idea of taking a gun on a long road trip, as much as anything else. NOT suggesting anything untoward with Mrs Jam whatsoever, but for an Aussie that is just JAW DROPPING and SCARY.
There sure is a massive cultural acceptance of guns in your part of the world! Reading PS< it constantly surprises me.

I am equally stunned that a person can shoot another in public and walk away without a charge - amazed, in fact. Regardless of whether the younger person attacked physically first - although that in itself is of course way out of bounds (but an objectively lesser 'out of bounds' seeing how things worked out). Being punched would never provide legal protection to Zimmerman here. Not in a million years.

ETA: just read JewelFreak's post, apparently Zimmerman was threatened with death? OMG must remember to leave this stuff to a jury. But the idea of a 'regular guy' and self-appointed neighbourhood security guard being able to carry a gun in public and then shoot it at pointblank range at someone is seriously wierd to me. I have outed myself as a country hick (aussie style) I guess.

 

[Smith1942]

Well, ME, of course.

Actually, it is I.

Deb

But....sometimes "me" is correct, as in the following sentences:

"The dog followed John and me to the door" because if "John" wasn't in the sentence, you wouldn't say "The dog followed I to the door."

And:

"Rose spent the day with John and me" - same thing.

So.....I think "me" is also probably correct in the example above. See number 26 in this link: http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/1133/my-friends-and-i-vs-my-friends-and-me-vs-me-and-my-friends

 

[Smith1942]

and the victim managed to pick up something and crown the attacker with it.

Why on earth would someone want to crown their attacker? I thought crowns were for royalty. Surely it's more acceptable to gift an attacker with a concussion.

I'm joking with you. I very much appreciated your pub-induced feisty evaluation of our native Manglish. The US has a labyrinthine language that is considered one of the most difficult to learn. We have so many ways to say the right/wright/rite thing.

Very funny, Matata!

 

[Maria D]

Hey, let's not forget that he was not an "innocent" boy by any means. He got GZ on the ground & was beating the crap out of him. His final threat was, "You're gonna die tonight M...F.." as he reached for GZ's gun; whether or not he actually was able to touch it does not mitigate the fear that must have inspired. His phone had multiple pics of guns, tweets about fights & smoking dope.

The photo with almost every article was one of TM at TWELVE years old, looking small & innocent, & of GZ after he gained 100 pounds through stress-eating after the fact, looking big & bully-ish. Attempts -- which worked, I can see, to manipulate the public's view.

Why should "walk away" not apply to TM? When asked by neighborhood watch what he was doing, why should he not be expected to say, "I'm going to my dad's house"? What's so darned hard about that?

Nothing about the kid says "innocent" to me. But people vary, as we say in the old country.

--- Laurie

Whooooaaaa, hold on a sec! We don't know that Trayvon Martin said any such thing. Zimmerman says that Martin threatened him with those words but no witnesses heard it. Witnesses couldn't agree on who was yelling "Help!" much less corroborate Zimmerman's allegations. Facts: Zimmerman got beat up by Martin. Zimmerman shot Martin in the chest and killed him. Zimmerman was treated by an EMT for 5 minutes before being released to the police.

You may believe every word that Zimmerman says but that doesn't make it fact.

 

[Smith1942]

English is the language of England. The dialect version of English spoken in America doesn't exist in England, so over here the language should be called American, in my view.

This isn't the thread to go into details, but seriously, the differences between the two are vast and startling. They share a small core vocabulary and some of the simpler tenses, and that's where the similarities end.

Americans are very proud to be American and got rid of as much British influence as possible, so it seems a little strange that they are happy to call their language English - I would've thought they'd have switched to calling it American a long time ago, maybe at the time of the Revolution.

Smith1942, God knows I enjoy reading your posts, but all I want to say is that English no longer only belongs to the English now but the world. Your opinion is mixed up with national pride and possessiveness but it's good to look at the other view. I know you're specifically talking about Americans, but it's a really sweeping point of view.

Sure, English does come from England but I resent it when people say that English is strictly the language of England (sure, if we're talking origins), and that other variants of English do not count as English (English is my first language. I am not white and I come from a former Brit colony, and I bristle when people tell me how well I speak English.) The English language is evolving all the time and it takes in words from other languages all the time e.g. bungalow (Indian) and typhoon (Mandarin). What used to be slang hundreds of years ago has passed into common use as well.

English is also not the only language in which language variations exist. I live in Montreal, Quebec, where the first language is French, and believe me, the French is quite different from the French spoken in France. And they've been speaking like this since the 1600s, so don't come here telling the French Canadians they're speaking a mangled form of French. Similarly, don't tell the Latin Americans and Mexicans they speak a mangled form of Spanish to the Spaniards.

All right, that's all I'm going to say on this matter. Sorry for the threadjack, folks!

P.S: Is Shakespeare the ultimate master of English? What if I want to argue that it was Chaucer? Who decides these things?

Hi! Well, it does and it doesn't belong to the world. The English of England is very, very precise and hugely complex compared to the American version. The vocabulary is significantly larger with multiple words for many things, and a full range of tenses. Americans do not use the pluperfect tense, only the simple past, for example.

Another example is the way that the American language uses one word to make do for multiple meanings. When an American says they have cleaned their room, I have no idea if they were using a bucket of soapy water and a scrubbing brush, shampooing the carpets and washing the windows, or if they were merely putting clothes and possessions away. In England, "clean" is only used to mean actually cleaning. If your clothes and possessions were strewn everywhere and needed tidying up, you've tidied your room. And to straighten up a room means that only a few things were out of place and it just took a few minutes. These usages are very precise and set in stone. I would never say I had cleaned a room if soap and water were not involved. So Americans use "clean" to mean scrubbing, tidying, and straightening. How on earth do you deduce what has actually taken place?

A prime example, is the verb "to fight". You only ever use this verb in England if punches had been thrown. If a friend of mine rang up and said she had had a fight with her husband, I'd call the police immediately, because he must have punched her. If no punches were thrown you would never say "fight" in England. You'd say that you had an argument, or you had a row, or an argy-bargy, or at least five other words to mean that you had conflict but it was verbal not physical.

When Americans say they had a fight, how on earth do you deduce whether punches were thrown or not? I cannot understand how anyone communicates with any effectiveness here because the usage is so imprecise.

Also, I cannot understand why Americans get "bring" and "take" mixed up. Again, the usage is very precise in England and these usages are ingrained at an early age. I had never heard anyone get them mixed up before coming to America. In my first job here, a colleague emailed me explaining that I should "bring the form to Lee". From that I deduced that Lee must sit right next to her, so I walked over to her with the form expecting Lee to be right there. She did not mean "bring", she meant "take the form to Lee" who sat at the other end of the office. You do say "bring the form to Lee" unless you are Lee.

And why can't people use the pluperfect tense here? "I wish I would have went there". Never in my life have I heard such a grammatical mess. The speaker means, "I wish I HAD GONE there."

And only the simple past is used here. The British use a past participle and everything!

American: "Did you eat yet?"
British: "Have you eaten yet?"

And when Americans say "Did you see Titanic?" the British response is "When?" In Britain you would only use that construction if you were talking about a specific time, like if the person had said they were going to see it that afternoon and you saw them in the evening, you would say, "Did you see it?" But if are talking about any point in time, you would say, "Have you ever seen Titanic?" Note the time marker "ever".

British English, as I said above, is extremely precise.

So, the language of England is the most complex and sophisticated form. The English dictionary is so, so much bigger than Merriam Webster because the vocabulary is very small here compared to British English.

American is a dialect version of English, It's a highly simplified version of the real thing, with local colour thrown in. So it's a dialect, and I think it should be recognised as a dialect or simply christened the American language.

Considering the Americans' pride in their independence from Britain, I'm amazed that they call it English at all. I would have thought they'd have given up calling it English at the time of the Revolution and proudly batted on in terms of developing their own American language - which they did. I just don't understand why it isn't called American.

 

[AGBF]

Hey, let's not forget that he was not an "innocent" boy by any means.

Nothing about the kid says "innocent" to me.

Yes, he was innocent. He did not commit a crime as George Zimmerman thought he had. It doesn't matter if he looked innocent to you or if you liked what was on his computer. He was carrying candy and a soft drink and he couldn't walk safely in a Florida neighborhood because an older man was legally armed on property that he did not own and did not need to protect. Being armed on that land made that man a danger to the younger man who was, indeed, innocent of any criminal wrongdoing and who should have been allowed to walk freely on the land with his candy and his soft drink. The younger man should not have been stopped by an aggressor who held a weapon and had the right to use it with impunity. He was an innocent victim...of the law and the entire society.

AGBF

 

[JewelFreak]

Police with long careers dealing with criminals & liars believed Zimmerman to be telling the truth throughout his SIX voluntary sessions of questioning. All cops who interviewed him. His account of the entire incident was consistent with evidence. Particularly if you know anything about Vincent DeMaio (check him out -- 40 yrs of excellence in forensic pathology & gunshot wounds -- I've read about him for decades), the thing appears to have gone down as GZ said. Since murderers do not usually call for an audience, we must use our intelligence & experienced investigators to figure out what happened.

Look at TM's tweets -- this is a kid who admires violence, as well as drug use. He's like a sad many young people today. The true tragedy is what he wanted to emulate.

GZ was not "self-appointed." He was part of an organized Neighborhood Watch group formed after a series of robberies in that development. Residents were concerned & afraid. Those groups are mentored & monitored by the cops, not a bunch of vigilantes going wild.

The gym trainer used by GZ testified that he was so un-buff that he "didn't want him to shadow box in case the shadow won."

Watch trial footage. I watched the whole thing. You won't find the facts in the MSM -- conflict sells; facts get in the way.

--- Laurie

 

[AGBF]

Well, ME, of course.

Actually, it is I.

But....sometimes "me" is correct, as in the following sentences:

"The dog followed John and me to the door" because if "John" wasn't in the sentence, you wouldn't say "The dog followed I to the door."

And:

"Rose spent the day with John and me" - same thing.

So.....I think "me" is also probably correct in the example above. See number 26 in this link: http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/1133/my-friends-and-i-vs-my-friends-and-me-vs-me-and-my-friends

No, Smith, it is not correct in the statement above. I hesitate to correct an English speaker, being a mere American, but let me point out one of the rules of English grammar going back to Shakespeare.

There are two cases in English that remain from the original Latin cases: the nominative and the accusative. In this sentence, where one is answering a question as to who has the correct answer, one uses the nominative case, so one uses, "I". "Me" would be the accusative case.

Naturally there are times in English when one uses the accusative case. No one has argued that there is no proper time to use the word, "me".

AGBF

 

[Smith1942]

Hey, let's not forget that he was not an "innocent" boy by any means.

Nothing about the kid says "innocent" to me.

Yes, he was innocent. He did not commit a crime as George Zimmerman thought he had. It doesn't matter if he looked innocent to you or if you liked what was on his computer. He was carrying candy and a soft drink and he couldn't walk safely in a Florida neighborhood because an older man was legally armed on property that he did not own and did not need to protect. Being armed on that land made that man a danger to the younger man who was, indeed, innocent of any criminal wrongdoing and who should have been allowed to walk freely on the land with his candy and his soft drink. The younger man should not have been stopped by an aggressor who held a weapon and had the right to use it with impunity. He was an innocent victim...of the law and the entire society.

AGBF

I was actually surprised that Martin beat up Zimmerman as badly as he did. Witnesses saw Martin astride Zimmerman, beating him, and Zimmerman had significant injuries. I think, possibly, that's what JewelFreak meant when she said he wasn't an innocent kid. Obviously he didn't deserve to die, but no one I knew at 17 would have gone at it hammer and tongs with their fists like that.

The whole thing is so sad and they were both to blame. Zimmerman should never have started on him and stared at him obviously enough to upset him, and he should not have followed him, and Martin shouldn't have beaten him up. Neither party, it seems, made any effort to defuse the situation by identifying themselves as Neighbourhood Watch or as a guest of his father's at the complex. If either of them had calmed down, maybe tragedy could have been averted. So sad.

As regards the verdict, the jury had no choice but to apply the laws of the land, and in Florida they have stand-your-ground. If the jury believed that it was reasonable for Zimmerman to be very frightened, then they really had to acquit, based on the law.

I can see how the whole unfortunate thing unfolded.

However, I still wonder why Zimmerman didn't give him a disabling shot in the thigh, which you'd think would be easier than going for the chest if someone is astride you. Then he would have disabled him rather than killed him. I mean, one clean shot to the chest...that's not right.

 

[mrs jam]

Hi! Well, it does and it doesn't belong to the world. The English of England is very, very precise and hugely complex compared to the American version. The vocabulary is significantly larger with multiple words for many things, and a full range of tenses. Americans do not use the pluperfect tense, only the simple past, for example.

Another example is the way that the American language uses one word to make do for multiple meanings. When an American says they have cleaned their room, I have no idea if they were using a bucket of soapy water and a scrubbing brush, shampooing the carpets and washing the windows, or if they were merely putting clothes and possessions away. In England, "clean" is only used to mean actually cleaning. If your clothes and possessions were strewn everywhere and needed tidying up, you've tidied your room. And to straighten up a room means that only a few things were out of place and it just took a few minutes. These usages are very precise and set in stone. I would never say I had cleaned a room if soap and water were not involved. So Americans use "clean" to mean scrubbing, tidying, and straightening. How on earth do you deduce what has actually taken place?

A prime example, is the verb "to fight". You only ever use this verb in England if punches had been thrown. If a friend of mine rang up and said she had had a fight with her husband, I'd call the police immediately, because he must have punched her. If no punches were thrown you would never say "fight" in England. You'd say that you had an argument, or you had a row, or an argy-bargy, or at least five other words to mean that you had conflict but it was verbal not physical.

When Americans say they had a fight, how on earth do you deduce whether punches were thrown or not? I cannot understand how anyone communicates with any effectiveness here because the usage is so imprecise.

Also, I cannot understand why Americans get "bring" and "take" mixed up. Again, the usage is very precise in England and these usages are ingrained at an early age. I had never heard anyone get them mixed up before coming to America. In my first job here, a colleague emailed me explaining that I should "bring the form to Lee". From that I deduced that Lee must sit right next to her, so I walked over to her with the form expecting Lee to be right there. She did not mean "bring", she meant "take the form to Lee" who sat at the other end of the office. You do say "bring the form to Lee" unless you are Lee.

And why can't people use the pluperfect tense here? "I wish I would have went there". Never in my life have I heard such a grammatical mess. The speaker means, "I wish I HAD GONE there."

And only the simple past is used here. The British use a past participle and everything!

American: "Did you eat yet?"
British: "Have you eaten yet?"

And when Americans say "Did you see Titanic?" the British response is "When?" In Britain you would only use that construction if you were talking about a specific time, like if the person had said they were going to see it that afternoon and you saw them in the evening, you would say, "Did you see it?" But if are talking about any point in time, you would say, "Have you ever seen Titanic?" Note the time marker "ever".

British English, as I said above, is extremely precise.

So, the language of England is the most complex and sophisticated form. The English dictionary is so, so much bigger than Merriam Webster because the vocabulary is very small here compared to British English.

American is a dialect version of English, It's a highly simplified version of the real thing, with local colour thrown in. So it's a dialect, and I think it should be recognised as a dialect or simply christened the American language.

Considering the Americans' pride in their independence from Britain, I'm amazed that they call it English at all. I would have thought they'd have given up calling it English at the time of the Revolution and proudly batted on in terms of developing their own American language - which they did. I just don't understand why it isn't called American.

This is fascinating! I enjoyed reading all of the examples you described in this post. One of my co-workers is from England, and one of the things that I've noticed is that she speaks in the exact same manner as she writes her professional essays, with very clear, concise language. I've found that interesting because the same cannot be said for myself or my American peers. Our conversational language is a lot less formal than our writing.

 

[packrat]

'Round these parts we say "Jew eat yet?" or "Didja eat yet?" or "J'eat?" We also use "idnit" instead of "isn't it". I don't see the big deal in not always speaking in completely formal/proper grammar. "Excuse me, dear husband, but might I enquire as to your status regarding the upcoming time of luncheon? Have you partaken, or shall I proceed in preparing a repast?"

And as far as a "wounding" shot, no, as has been mentioned before. I've asked my husband (who is an officer) about things like that at various times when he tells me about his day, or when we watch the cop shows we enjoy. "Why can't they just shoot out the tires?" "why can't they just shoot the gun out of his hand?" "Why can't they just shoot him in the knee?" Nope. Basically the short answer is, this is real life, not the movies. In the movies, the bad guys are always bad shots, and the good guys are always military grade snipers. They have the benefit of a script. That's why a guy w/a mullet can do the cool shoulder roll/somersault things through a hailstorm of bullets and jump up unscathed, ready to take on 40 bad guys w/bombs and semi automatic weapons, when alls he has is a spork. IRL, in a situation like that, you don't have the time to think well hey now, hows about I just shoot him in this here knee, cuz in the movies they always just fall to the ground and the day is saved. No. If someone is on top of you, going for your gun, that's probably the last thing you're thinking of, and you don't shoot for one of the smallest parts of a body, you shoot for mass.

 

[Matata]

IRL, in a situation like that, you don't have the time to think well hey now, hows about I just shoot him in this here knee, cuz in the movies they always just fall to the ground and the day is saved. No. If someone is on top of you, going for your gun, that's probably the last thing you're thinking of, and you don't shoot for one of the smallest parts of a body, you shoot for mass.

But a very frightening reality to me is what I learned in several self-defense classes as well as training classes for a handgun permit -- always shoot to kill. You never want to wound. When I asked why this was so, I was told "never leave an alleged perp as a witness" "always embellish to the police and say that the alleged perp threatened your life" (whether this is the truth or not). Every instructor I've had said that leaving an attacker alive only means you get sued by that person and the victim usually loses. I found it disheartening because in the calm cool rational moment, I can't ever imagine shooting to kill. That is not to say that I wouldn't think/feel/act differently if I were being attacked.

 

[JewelFreak]

However, I still wonder why Zimmerman didn't give him a disabling shot in the thigh, which you'd think would be easier than going for the chest if someone is astride you.

How? This is one thing that made me think as I do about it. Pretend it's you, for a minute. You're flat on your back. A heavier & bigger guy sits on your stomach, leaning over you, 4" to 6" from your face (as the evidence showed), banging your head repeatedly on concrete, pounding away on your face. He has broken your nose; since you're on your back, blood drains into your mouth, nose, & throat instead of down your chin. Raise your head to find his thigh? Right into his fists? Your shirt gets pushed up in the scuffle & he sees your gun. Says, "You're gonna die tonight, m-f" & reaches toward it. It is raining. It is dark. How are you going to stop, think, get into position to point at his leg, while he's trying to grab the gun & whaling on your face? His thigh is down by your hip. His core a couple inches right above you. Picture yourself there.

Police noted at the scene that the back of GZ's shirt was wet & had grass on it; TM's was not. Pretty clear evidence of who was on top.

It is all sad, more imho as an example of what's happened to our society.

--- Laurie

P.S. The defense did not use the Stand & Defend law. It was not part of this case. They argued Self-Defense.

Deb, the gun did not come out until GZ's shirt pulled up & TM reached toward it. GZ did not have it in hand when he first stopped TM, nor during most of the beating. I meant that Martin was not what I think of as an "innocent kid." That connotes to me a child who tries to do the right thing, has morals & all that. Whatever morals this guy had included admiration for violence, guns, & getting stoned. Neighborhood Watch does have the right to stop unknown individuals & ask where they're going. Zimmerman should have waited for police before confronting Martin -- if he had, this wouldn't have happened. I don't know in whose book it's "innocent," however, for anyone to attack & beat a person who asks where they're headed.

 

[packrat]

IRL, in a situation like that, you don't have the time to think well hey now, hows about I just shoot him in this here knee, cuz in the movies they always just fall to the ground and the day is saved. No. If someone is on top of you, going for your gun, that's probably the last thing you're thinking of, and you don't shoot for one of the smallest parts of a body, you shoot for mass.

But a very frightening reality to me is what I learned in several self-defense classes as well as training classes for a handgun permit -- always shoot to kill. You never want to wound. When I asked why this was so, I was told "never leave an alleged perp as a witness" "always embellish to the police and say that the alleged perp threatened your life" (whether this is the truth or not). Every instructor I've had said that leaving an attacker alive only means you get sued by that person and the victim usually loses. I found it disheartening because in the calm cool rational moment, I can't ever imagine shooting to kill. That is not to say that I wouldn't think/feel/act differently if I were being attacked.

Who in the heck did your classes? A former prisoner? When I went to spouse day at the police academy this past winter, we spent the day basically in "class" with the instructors, learning about police work, reasons why they do or don't do things, why they're taught the things they are, that kinda thing. It's not about shooting to kill so you don't get in trouble or sued, it's about shooting to kill b/c you're probably going to miss anyway. You have a better chance of making it thru a situation of you intentionally shoot for mass. If someone is on top of you, trying to get your gun, you need to stop it from happening, and you aren't going to do that by giving someone a wet willy or pinching him. If you shoot someone in the knee, which is sooo much smaller and you have to be a *much* better shot to do that, they can still come after you. And boy are they going to be pissed. All that adrenaline rushing thru their body and a blown out knee? A bigger moving target is easier to hit than a smaller moving target.

And definitely yes, it's hard to say what we would do in situations like that, so we hope to never be in one. But it does happen. There's a lot of shoulda woulda coulda in the aftermath.

 

[Smith1942]

'Round these parts we say "Jew eat yet?" or "Didja eat yet?" or "J'eat?" We also use "idnit" instead of "isn't it". I don't see the big deal in not always speaking in completely formal/proper grammar. "Excuse me, dear husband, but might I enquire as to your status regarding the upcoming time of luncheon? Have you partaken, or shall I proceed in preparing a repast?"

And as far as a "wounding" shot, no, as has been mentioned before. I've asked my husband (who is an officer) about things like that at various times when he tells me about his day, or when we watch the cop shows we enjoy. "Why can't they just shoot out the tires?" "why can't they just shoot the gun out of his hand?" "Why can't they just shoot him in the knee?" Nope. Basically the short answer is, this is real life, not the movies. In the movies, the bad guys are always bad shots, and the good guys are always military grade snipers. They have the benefit of a script. That's why a guy w/a mullet can do the cool shoulder roll/somersault things through a hailstorm of bullets and jump up unscathed, ready to take on 40 bad guys w/bombs and semi automatic weapons, when alls he has is a spork. IRL, in a situation like that, you don't have the time to think well hey now, hows about I just shoot him in this here knee, cuz in the movies they always just fall to the ground and the day is saved. No. If someone is on top of you, going for your gun, that's probably the last thing you're thinking of, and you don't shoot for one of the smallest parts of a body, you shoot for mass.

See, Packrat, you can get your royalty on with the best of 'em!

But seriously, when I talk about the preciseness of British English, that preciseness is not a conscious choice we make every time we open our mouths. That is the way the language is. So it's natural to say precisely what you mean. None of my examples were about flowery language. But I would never, ever say I had a fight with someone unless I'd punched them, and I would never say I'd cleaned my room unless water, cleaning detergents and scrubbing actions were involved.

Before I moved over to America, my husband had a friend over who in turn brought some Brazilian girls. They were watching a sports match of some kind. My husband told me later that the Brazilian girls had cleaned my flat. Bloody cheek, I thought. I had visions of these girls with buckets and mops, swarming all over the place, scrubbing everything in sight, seeing all my stuff, and I didn't like it much. Did they use the proper granite cleaner on the granite? Did they use the stone cleaner on the stone floor? Who knows? And why the hell were they cleaning my flat in the first place? Did they think that my husband-to-be was some kind of messy bachelor who needed looking after, and they were mothering him, in my absence? I was not best pleased and I believe my consternation transmitted itself to my husband over the wires 3,500 miles away.

Jesus Christ. All he meant was that the girls had thrown away the pizza boxes and put their glasses away. They tidied up, in other words. They did not clean my apartment.

How's that for a linguistic misunderstanding? We nearly had quite the transatlantic row about that. I was about to ask him to please not let a group of strangers all over my place with their mops, in future. But why say "clean" when you mean nothing of the sort, whyyyy???

 

[Maria D]

However, I still wonder why Zimmerman didn't give him a disabling shot in the thigh, which you'd think would be easier than going for the chest if someone is astride you.

How? This is one thing that made me think as I do about it. Pretend it's you, for a minute. You're flat on your back. A heavier & bigger guy sits on your stomach, leaning over you, 4" to 6" from your face (as the evidence showed), banging your head repeatedly on concrete, pounding away on your face. He has broken your nose; since you're on your back, blood drains into your mouth, nose, & throat instead of down your chin. Raise your head to find his thigh? Right into his fists? Your shirt gets pushed up in the scuffle & he sees your gun. Says, "You're gonna die tonight, m-f" & reaches toward it. It is raining. It is dark. How are you going to stop, think, get into position to point at his leg, while he's trying to grab the gun & whaling on your face? His thigh is down by your hip. His core a couple inches right above you. Picture yourself there.

Police noted at the scene that the back of GZ's shirt was wet & had grass on it; TM's was not. Pretty clear evidence of who was on top.

It is all sad, more imho as an example of what's happened to our society.

--- Laurie

P.S. The defense did not use the Stand & Defend law. It was not part of this case. They argued Self-Defense.

Just a quick fact check:

1. Martin was taller, but not heavier than Zimmerman.
2. There's no proof whatsoever that Martin verbally threatened Zimmerman.
3. ER personnel did not find Zimmerman's injuries serious enough to warrant taking him to the hospital. They did not even put a band-aid on his head.

And I'm not positive, but I do not believe there's any evidence that Martin was leaning 4 to 6 inches from Zimmerman's face.

Were you there to hear the "You're gonna die tonight...." threat? Because you keep repeating it. No witness heard it but you keep stating it here as gospel truth; why?

 

[Maria D]

But a very frightening reality to me is what I learned in several self-defense classes as well as training classes for a handgun permit -- always shoot to kill. You never want to wound. When I asked why this was so, I was told "never leave an alleged perp as a witness" "always embellish to the police and say that the alleged perp threatened your life" (whether this is the truth or not). Every instructor I've had said that leaving an attacker alive only means you get sued by that person and the victim usually loses. I found it disheartening because in the calm cool rational moment, I can't ever imagine shooting to kill. That is not to say that I wouldn't think/feel/act differently if I were being attacked.

Matata, your post sent a chill up my spine. Reading Zimmerman's statement to police, it sounds like he had the exact same training.