1 2  4 5 6 7 8 13
Thank you. I feel exonerated.

You shouldn't. The judge was still wrong, or his usage was. Not for quite the reason I said at first, I agree, but, nevertheless wrong.

Were the judge a Brit and speaking in the UK, you might be right. But you are ill-equipped to make this kind of judgment about American English. All the evidence says that you are wrong.

Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
For email, replace numbers with English alphabet.
True. Not without an object though. The goods were exonerated ... though. It was a grammatical rather than a semantic one.

If you look again at the Wellington 1798 usage under Def. 1, you will notice that "finances" is the direct ... judge said, "I will exonerate your bail", in which sentence "bail" is also the DO of the transitive verb "exonerate".

The judge didn't say that. If he had then we wouldn't be having this discussion!
"Your bail is exonerated and you are released."
And as Lars pointed out, "bail" in the judge's sentence could just as easily mean "the person who provides the bail money", which would give the sentence it's for-you-required human object.

Could it? Under what meaning of 'bail'?

De gustibus non disputandum est. - Auctor Ignotus
* TagZilla 0.057 * http://tagzilla.mozdev.org
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
You shouldn't. The judge was still wrong, or his usage was. Not for quite the reason I said at first, I agree, but, nevertheless wrong.

Were the judge a Brit and speaking in the UK, you might be right. But you are ill-equipped to make this kind of judgment about American English. All the evidence says that you are wrong.

Not at all. Yank is a different language, I agree. It was reported in the Telegraph, though, so the sub ought to have translated it into English. I've already pointed out that this is where the matter was wrong. In the above, I'm using short hand for the 'judge was still wrong in English'. I'm not that concerned by Yank usages, they have little to do with English.

It is an unalterable law that people who claim to care about the human race are utterly indifferent to the sufferings of individuals - Quinten Crisp, Resident Alien
* TagZilla 0.057 * http://tagzilla.mozdev.org
You shouldn't. The judge was still wrong, or his usage was. Not for quite the reason I said at first, I agree, but, nevertheless wrong.

Does that mean that, while you are infallible, you are not infallible all the time?

If I had given any impression of infallibility, then, yes, it might have meant that. Since I hadn't, it didn't.

O how I cried when Alice died
The day we were to have wed!
We never had our Roasted Duck
And now she's a Loaf of Bread!
At nights I weep an cannot sleep,
Moonlight to me recalls
I never saw her Waterfront
Nor she my Waterfalls
- W.H. Auden verses for 'The Dog Beneath the Skin' * TagZilla 0.057 * http://tagzilla.mozdev.org
True. Not without an object though. The goods were exonerated ... though. It was a grammatical rather than a semantic one.

Stubborin.

Not at all. Remember; "I am steadfast, you are stubborn and he is pig-headed'.
Furthermore, accepting correction and re putting your point in acceptance of that correction is about as un-stubborn as you can get.

Whatever forces a certain number of students to any college or university, independent of the merit or reputation of the teachers, tends more or less to diminish the necessity of that merit or reputation. AN INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE AND CAUSES OF THE WEALTH OF NATIONS. by Adam Smith
* TagZilla 0.057 * http://tagzilla.mozdev.org
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
In our last episode,
(Email Removed),
the lovely and talented CyberCypher
broadcast on alt.usage.english:
True. Not without an object though. The goods were exonerated ... though. It was a grammatical rather than a semantic one.

If you look again at the Wellington 1798 usage under Def. 1, you will notice that "finances" is the direct ... just as easily mean "the person who provides the bail money", which would give the sentence it's for-you-required human object.

I'm not eager to make too much of this - except to point out how remarkably talented I am to be able to open a dictionary. And it isn't a fluke. I can do it again any time I wish. I hope everyone is as impressed with this talent as I am.

Nobody is bothered by:
The ship is unloaded.
The cargo is unloaded.
And you can say "But 'The cargo is unloaded from* the ship'" or "But 'The ship is unloaded *of its cargo'" as much as you please without casting any more light on the situation.

Why not "The bail is exonerated"? The problem seems to be that this exact formula is not in the OED, to which the only possible response is "Tough!" How dare anyone say something that has never been said before?
I suppose I have a suspicious nature. Before this discussion occurred I thought "exonerated" meant "found innocent." I never thought to look it up. Of course it would be very silly to say "The bail was found innocent" even if one knows "bail" can also mean the person who provides the security. In my suspicious mind, I have an inkling that the OP thought as I did, did not look up "exonerated," and perhaps distressed by the proceedings in California for not-so-semantic reasons, mounted his high horse, and has not found a graceful way to dismount, no matter how uncomfortable that perch has become. To change metaphors in midstream, the OP has not mastered the First Law of Holes.

The judge did not make up this usage. A quick google reveals ample precedent in his learned profession. I do not flinch from considering the possibility that all the judges and lawyers may be wrong, but why not "exonerated bail"? Is there something illogical or ambiguous about it that is not illogical or ambiguous in both the ship and the cargo being unloaded? No, it is just that this precise formula is not in the OED.

Tough.

Lars Eighner (Email Removed) http://www.larseighner.com / First comes the cross, then comes the cross burnings.
Not at all! You'll notice that the judge has now been misquoted to try to fit into an acceptable construction - I've corrected that attempt.

Those who know anything about the matter are aware that every writer, from Epicurus to Bentham, who maintained the theory of utility, meant by it, not something to be contradistinguished from pleasure, but pleasure itself, together with exemption from pain; and instead of opposing the useful to the agreeable or the ornamental, have always declared that the useful means these, among other things. J.S.Mill Chapter II, Utilitarianism
* TagZilla 0.057 * http://tagzilla.mozdev.org
If you look again at the Wellington 1798 usage under ... "bail" is also the DO of the transitive verb "exonerate".

"Your bail is exonerated and you are released."

This is arguably a passive form: "Your bail is (now) exonerated (by me)". It comes from the same structure as "You are (now) exonerated (by me)". We can turn "I exonerate your bail" into "Your bail is exonerated" just as we can turn "The jury has exonerated you" into "You have been exonerated (by the jury)" into "You are/were exonerated".
And as Lars pointed out, "bail" in the judge's sentence ... money", which would give the sentence it's for-you-required human object.

Could it? Under what meaning of 'bail'?

Look it up in an American English dictionary. Lars already gave the definition above from MW11, I gave it from W3NID. Here it is from the Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary:
"2. the person who agrees to be liable if someone released from custody does not return at an appointed time."
Therefore, you will have to eat crow, Peter. Your *** was unjustified, and you had not checked thoroughly enough to justify such a moan. None of us had. Only Lars figured out that it would be smart to check a contemporary dictionary instead of relying on the OED.

Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
For email, replace numbers with English alphabet.
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
Were the judge a Brit and speaking in the ... American English. All the evidence says that you are wrong.

Not at all. Yank is a different language, I agree. It was reported in the Telegraph, though, so the sub ... 'judge was still wrong in English'. I'm not that concerned by Yank usages, they have little to do with English.

If you want to say that the judge was still wrong "in English", you have to say "British English" or "English English" or "BrE". We all speak one dialect or another of English.

Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
For email, replace numbers with English alphabet.
Show more