decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Indefinite article==> Speaking in Singular | 249 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Indefinite article==> Speaking in Singular
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 22 2012 @ 03:51 PM EDT
As the webpage at http://www.talkenglish.com/Grammar/articles.aspx points out,
indefinite articles are always used with singular nouns. Only definite articles
can be used with either singular or plural nouns.

Since PJ hasn't deleted the parent comment posted at 01:27 PM EDT (about one
hour after her comment), I assume it's OK to talk about definite versus
indefinite articles. If it's not OK, then please delete that one, too. It's not
correct.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

The example
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 22 2012 @ 06:25 PM EDT
Strictly speaking, "Have you ever driven a car?" is a yes or no
question. Whether or not a respondent would say anything more than
"Yes" or "No" would be driven by the context. (PJ seems to
agree that the context is important.) For an analogous example to work, both the
question and the context would have to be provided and be similar to the
situation in the courtroom. If someone tried to provide an analogous context,
the discussion would probably get bogged down into discussions of apples versus
oranges, so it probably wouldn't even be worth trying.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • The example - Authored by: PJ on Monday, October 22 2012 @ 07:57 PM EDT
    • The example - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 22 2012 @ 11:39 PM EDT
Indefinite article != Speaking in Singular
Authored by: Wol on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 10:48 AM EDT
Hogan did not "shut his trap prematurely". Judge Koh closed him down.

Plus, as anonymous pointed out elsewhere, on at least one occasion another
prospective juror had to correct Judge Koh, and ram home the
"plurality" point - to paraphrase:

Prospective: I have three patents

Judge: *This* (singular) patent** (no s, singular) ...

As I say, I have no problem with the fact Hogan should have disclosed it. I do
have a problem with the fact that the Judge moved on and did not give him the
opportunity to disclose it when he should have. Yes he should have dragged her
attention back to him, but in his shoes would you have done? I doubt I would!

By the way, PJ, can I explain why I press this point so much? You seem to have
the typical American belief that "American is best", and on many
occasions you have declared your faith in "due process". Due process
proved Novell right - dead right. Where's the *justice* if they're no longer
around to enjoy being right?

And I know I've mentioned it before, but one of my early abiding memories of a
law case was a murder case. Probably in the mid 80s. I think a disabled man was
murdered (certain details are fuzzy, others aren't). Anyways, two young girls
were arrested and charged with murder. The press coverage was intense, and
vitriolic. At the Old Bailey, if the mob could have broken into the prison van,
these girls would have been lynched. They were duly convicted and sentenced to
life imprisonment.

The case made its way on to the Court of Appeals. Where the Judges concluded
that, indeed, the evidence WAS INDEED overwhelming beyond all reasonable doubt -
- - THAT THE GIRLS COULD *NOT* HAVE DONE IT!

So these two young girls were set free - probably before their twentieth
birthdays - after spending 18 months in jail for murder. (And while our jails
have a better reputation than yours, our womens jails tend to be the dregs :-(
What did that do to them?

Ever since, whenever I see the peanut gallery baying for blood I get EXTREMELY
uneasy. Especially as I correctly called the conviction and acquittal on
appeal!

As an anonymous pointed out, there aren't actually any FACTS to back up either
side. And given the saying "never ascribe to malice what incompetence can
explain" plus the general mess that this trial has been all through, I veer
strongly towards incompetence. (Also, were this to be a UK court, Hogan would be
looking at at least 6 months, quite likely a year or two, in jail for this!)

Cheers,
Wol

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )