A mere legality

[Hunter, Lynne R CIV SPAWARSYSCEN-PACIFIC, 71700]

Thanks...I _do_ understand the part about being "hung in chains."
Evidently, I misread the original example.

-----Original Message-----
From: American Dialect Society [mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Baker, John
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 5:13 PM
To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: A mere legality

---------------------- Information from the mail header
-----------------------
    American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
Poster:       "Baker, John" <JBAKER at STRADLEY.COM>
Subject:      Re: A mere legality
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------

Garner's Dictionary of Legal Usage (3d ed. 2011) says not; Bryan Garner
adheres to the prescriptivist view that criminals found guilty of
capital offenses are "hanged."  However, The Merriam-Webster Dictionary
of English Usage (1989) rejects this view and says that "hung" for
"hanged" is certainly not an error.

However, in the example that prompted the original comment, "was hung in
chains" referred to something that happened to the body after execution,
so "hung" would seem to have the better case.


John Baker



-----Original Message-----
From: American Dialect Society [mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Hunter, Lynne R CIV SPAWARSYSCEN-PACIFIC, 71700
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 7:57 PM
To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: A mere legality

My mention of humans was in conjunction with "hung," not "hanged" (as I
conceded the appropriateness of the "hung" in "well hung" and the like
but expressed unease in using it to describe executions). I would never
maintain that "hanged" is restricted to humans; other living things
besides humans can (unfortunately, in my view) be hanged. Perhaps your
argument is that suicide falls outside the definition of execution, in
which case it might not be compatible with "hanged." I, on the other
hand, was (unconsciously) looking at suicide as a kind of
self-execution, in which case "hanged" would seem more natural than
"hung" to me.

So...what I was questioning was whether current usage allows/encourages
"hung" in lieu of "hanged" for execution by hanging.

Lynne Hunter

-----Original Message-----
From: American Dialect Society [mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Victor Steinbok
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 2:36 PM
To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: A mere legality

---------------------- Information from the mail header
-----------------------
       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
Poster:       Victor Steinbok <aardvark66 at GMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Re: A mere legality
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------

This is an interesting disagreement--I thought "hanged" was about
executions, at least, more so than about humans. Although there is the
"well hung" interference--no, I don't mean a body suspended in a well.

     VS-)

On 2/21/2012 4:58 PM, Hunter, Lynne R CIV SPAWARSYSCEN-PACIFIC, 71700
wrote:
> Aren't we saying "hanged" anymore (that is, in speaking of hanging by
> the neck, not suspension of the entire body)? Just asking. (I thought
> "hung" meant something else when applied to humans, although at this
> stage I only faintly remember.)

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org