|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 11 2012 @ 12:32 PM EDT |
Always thought it meant not debatable as in overtaken by events and not related
to the actual merits.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 11 2012 @ 01:02 PM EDT |
I always understood it to mean "not pertinent", or "not
significant".[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 11 2012 @ 01:41 PM EDT |
1. open to discussion or debate; debatable; doubtful: a moot
point.
2. of little or no practical value or meaning; purely
academic.
3. Chiefly Law . not actual; theoretical; hypothetical.
so 3. is the answer to OP.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, September 11 2012 @ 02:02 PM EDT |
| No. In the legal universe, moot means something else
has been
decided that makes it unnecessary to
decide the issue any more. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 11 2012 @ 02:33 PM EDT |
Yes, self-antonyms are fun, and pretty rare.
Moot is a good one. There's "hew" and "cleave", which both
mean both "join" and "split", then there's a set of nouns
that were "verbed" both ways, meaning either "add" or
"remove" depending on context, for example "dusting a cake"
vs "dusting the furniture".
Two other good law-related self-antonyms:
"Sanction": to have a rule about, which can mean either to
allow or to punish.
"oversight": Either the exercise of supervision, or a
failure to exercise supervision.
Then there are the words that aren't self-antonyms, but
lawyers use them exactly backwards, like "notwithstanding."
"Notwithstanding the above", as used by a lawyer, means "the
above notwithstanding." Which is the exact opposite.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
