@fineline At the time the English Department (Queen's, Belfast) had a Professor of English and a Professor of Old English. The OE curriculum spanned Beowulf to Chaucer and was dominant in the Honours school.
We don't know exactly when any of the Pearl poems were written, but roughly contemporary with Chaucer is a best estimate from the evidence. They aren't an earlier form of the language either, but rather a different dialect: a path not taken by London English.
Gawain is mostly written in alliterative verse which is an older tradition of verse writing compared to the rhyming verse of early Chaucer, which he got from French literature, or later Chaucer, which I believe he got from Italian literature. That said, the alliterative verse of Gawain, and Lsngland is written by writers with no cultural memory of what makes a good alliterative line: the way they use it it is a poor medium for a long poem.
@fineline At the time the English Department (Queen's, Belfast) had a Professor of English and a Professor of Old English. The OE curriculum spanned Beowulf to Chaucer and was dominant in the Honours school.
Al, that makes sense. I guess if it's a dominant part of the curriculum, then of course finer distinctions will be made. Middle English was a constant part of our curriculum, with a couple of excellent lecturers (who also taught Old English), but not the main focus, and it seemed quite separate from the other modules - different sort of exam too, at a different time, where we had to translate passages as well as analyse them. We had a lot more lecturers focused on 18th century literature. We had a system where if we wanted to study modern literature, we had to do modules on all the periods beforehand (except Old English, as that was optional, but we still had introductory lectures on it). I really wanted to do the modern modules and the American literature module, so I was sometimes seeing earlier periods more as a means to an end!
Middle English wasn't my favourite, but the main lecturer was great - she was lively and full of energy and totally different from the other lecturers, who were mostly Oxbridge graduates and very traditional, largely male, and some of them quite stuffy without good people skills. She had been a school teacher, done her PhD a bit later in life than the norm, though really knew her stuff. But she was very focused on making Middle English interesting and accessible, so maybe didn't focus so much on the fine distinctions of categories.
Though Chaucer was referred to as Middle English when we did him for A level too, and in the university libraries, he was under the Middle English section, so I guess it was a more systemic thing too.
Interesting point about Anglo-Saxon influences in the South-East predating the Roman departure, because it ties in with something I recall from a discussion of local archaeology. The Darent Valley was divided into a sequence of estates which may originate before the Romans, and which persist in modern parish boundaries. Each estate had a villa at the centre, succeeded by a later establishment away from the villa site. And one of them, at Farningham, did not have a normal villa style building, but something much more Germanic, while dating from before the English Settlement. It was a long time ago I came across this, and probably evening class again.
One point about the area was that it looked very much as if the new, English, occupants moved in respecting the existing boundaries. This may not be general across the country.
In the Purgatory Trump legacy thread, there are comments about a court case brought against the former president regarding illegal emoluments. Apparently the Supreme Court has ruled that as he is no longer president, the case is 'moot' and cannot proceed to trial. In British legalese, if a point is 'moot' it is debatable. If it is debatable, it should be tried. Does 'moot' have a different meaning in the USA?
I have just annoyed youngest daughter by proving that a strong preterite and past participle of snow (snew/snown) exist. Don't know if either is used outside the UK.
Later a moot point, initially a legal issue, became used more widely to mean one that was open to argument, debatable or uncertain. The author Gerald Durrell used it in this sense when he wrote: “Whether he could have bitten us successfully ... was rather a moot point, but it was not the sort of experiment I cared to make.”
Today, I think most British English speakers would use moot in this sense, or as a verb to mean proposed (“Banking: plan mooted for merger of trade associations” ran a typical headline this week). It’s a different story in the United States, where since the 19th century a moot point has been one that is at best academic and at worst irrelevant. The OED quotes the supreme court, no less, ruling that “a moot question” has “no bearing” on an issue. So in 2000, Time magazine, writing about the US election, said: “Media critics have long argued that networks should not call races until all polls have closed to avoid affecting turnout. It’s a moot argument: information will out.”
Just to complicate things, the older meaning of moot as in a hypothetical discussion by law students survives in the US, unchanged, in the moot courts at which American law students practise their skills in simulated legal proceedings.
Apart from the UK use of 'mooted' as a synonym for 'proposed' it seems to me that a common thread between the UK and US issues is that if a point is moot then it doesn't matter: Brits (if I have understood things properly) think that the point has been settled, while Americans think there's no point in trying to settle it.
Following on from the quote that @Fawkes Cat provided, in US law schools, a moot court is a mock/practice appellate argument. A simulated trial for law students is referred to as a mock trial, not as a moot court.
Practicing lawyers will also do moot courts to prepare for real upcoming arguments before an appellate court.
In common usage where I'm from, "moot" means "irrelevant". Even if debated, and even if a result emerges from the debate, that result will have no impact on anything.
I have just annoyed youngest daughter by proving that a strong preterite and past participle of snow (snew/snown) exist. Don't know if either is used outside the UK.
I have never known either of them to be used IN the UK! But then, I have only lived in the south of England and Yorkshire - there's plenty of other areas.
In common usage where I'm from, "moot" means "irrelevant". Even if debated, and even if a result emerges from the debate, that result will have no impact on anything.
I have just annoyed youngest daughter by proving that a strong preterite and past participle of snow (snew/snown) exist. Don't know if either is used outside the UK.
I have never known either of them to be used IN the UK! But then, I have only lived in the south of England and Yorkshire - there's plenty of other areas.
I have just annoyed youngest daughter by proving that a strong preterite and past participle of snow (snew/snown) exist. Don't know if either is used outside the UK.
I have never known either of them to be used IN the UK! But then, I have only lived in the south of England and Yorkshire - there's plenty of other areas.
I have just annoyed youngest daughter by proving that a strong preterite and past participle of snow (snew/snown) exist. Don't know if either is used outside the UK.
I have never known either of them to be used IN the UK! But then, I have only lived in the south of England and Yorkshire - there's plenty of other areas.
When I was young, I recall "snew" being used as another word for a particular form of "snot" - mucous dangling from the nose. Thus "snew on you", which was the childhood act of pretending to pick your nose and wiping it off on another child. Or at least pretending to.
US usage, I think, means that it is only a matter of debate, and of no practical significance.
As it does here, debatable but irrelevant, and used do the same in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (can't speak of Scotland). I don't know where Eirenist gets that interpretation from. It's also used in the mock trial sense mentioned by others.
'Moot' definitely does not mean 'irrelevant' here. If you use it that way, you are setting yourself up to be misunderstood. It means 'debatable' or 'uncertain'. The only context in which a person might construe it to imply irrelevance is if you're referring to something that is collateral to the main issue and that you might be able to get away with leaving it undecided.
I've not encountered snew as the past tense of snow, but it could well exist. If it does, it sounds as though it would fit with a Norfolk accent. I have heard and used snown as the participle. Saying both in my head, I've realised I'm not quite sure whether 'snowed' or 'snown' is the one that's actually correct but the spell-checker says 'snowed'.
Noting that I have never been able to tolerate an entire episode of Friends....
Are we into the same different that "to table" and "tabling" a motion means? Where, depending on where you live, may mean to start discussing it, to set it aside and never discuss it, or to talk about it later at another meeting. The last one is how it is used where I'm on a couple of boards, usually said as "can we table that for next month?"
Are we into the same different that "to table" and "tabling" a motion means? Where, depending on where you live, may mean to start discussing it, to set it aside and never discuss it, or to talk about it later at another meeting. The last one is how it is used where I'm on a couple of boards, usually said as "can we table that for next month?"
Yes, in the UK, "to table a motion" is to place it on the table for discussion. In the US, it is to remove it from discussion (and put it back on a table?) What is Canadian standard?
As far as I know, we're encouraged to not use "table" unless we explain what we mean when we say it. Kind of like we spell things both color and colour, traveled and travelled, though paycheque never paycheck, tire never tyre.
A irksome issue is that typically we find no Canadian English spell check or usage in most computer programs. The absolute worst is dates. I read medical reports which will say 1/12/2020 and 12/1/2020. Which are either the same date or almost a year apart. Thus we are encouraged to use 2020-12-01 which is the federal gov't usage. I usually handwrite write 01 Dec 2020 for max clarity.
These kind of words are called contranyms. Moot, table (v.), sanction--they have two meanings that contradict one another. So freaking obnoxious, as you're basically at risk for being misunderstood every time you use them.
'Moot' definitely does not mean 'irrelevant' here. If you use it that way, you are setting yourself up to be misunderstood. It means 'debatable' or 'uncertain'. The only context in which a person might construe it to imply irrelevance is if you're referring to something that is collateral to the main issue and that you might be able to get away with leaving it undecided.
In my understanding (more a UK civil service usage than a regional one), when someone says "That's a moot point" they mean 'Well, people may argue about that , but it's not relevant to this discussion.'
There are quite a few English contranyms having played around with a photographic challenge using them. Are trimmings the bits you cut off fabric or meat (or hair) or the things you use to decorate the same? Do you dust the kitchen surface to add flour for rolling out pastry, or to remove the dust? Have you left the room or are you left behind in the same room?
I usually handwrite write 01 Dec 2020 for max clarity.
Yes - my practice is to name the month, like you do here, to avoid any possible confusion. (whilst ISO 8601-style dates are unlikely to cause confusion, they also IMO don't map naturally to the way people usually think. They're great for computer use, to make it easy to sort things in time order, but not so great for humans.)
Noting that I have never been able to tolerate an entire episode of Friends....
Yeah, it's pretty cheesy, but there are a few bits from it that stick in my head forever, and Joey explaining "a moo point" will always be one of them. #NoRegrets
Noting that I have never been able to tolerate an entire episode of Friends....
Yeah, it's pretty cheesy, but there are a few bits from it that stick in my head forever, and Joey explaining "a moo point" will always be one of them. #NoRegrets
I realize now that that joke in particular doesn't translate for people from the UK if they have a completely different meaning for "moot." Just one more example of how much humour is tied to specific word meanings/connotations. Until this discussion I didn't even know there was a different meaning for "moot."
Are we into the same different that "to table" and "tabling" a motion means? Where, depending on where you live, may mean to start discussing it, to set it aside and never discuss it, or to talk about it later at another meeting. The last one is how it is used where I'm on a couple of boards, usually said as "can we table that for next month?"
Yes, in the UK, "to table a motion" is to place it on the table for discussion. In the US, it is to remove it from discussion (and put it back on a table?) What is Canadian standard?
In Canadian Presbyterian practice there can be a motion to place a motion under discussion on the table for a number of reasons - unsuitable timing, insufficient information etc. Later, or at a later meeting there can be a motion to lift it it from the table and resume discussion.
I'm fascinated to learn there is a different, North American meaning of moot. When I was in Canada, years ago, a friend there used the expression 'a moot point,' and at the time I thought she must not understand the meaning of the term. I didn't question it, because she was talking about a sensitive topic in her life, but the British meaning would have meant something she definitely wasn't saying. It simply didn't occur to me there was another meaning.
In Canada, a practice trial between legal students is called a moot trial.
I have heard it a few times in the United States, but generally, our term is a "mock" trial
I've heard the phrase "moot court" rather than "moot trial".
A “moot court,” at least as the term is used in American law schools and among American attorneys in my experience, is a mock or practice appellate argument—nothing but legal arguments with questions from the bench. They can happen in law school with hypothetical cases, and law schools almost always have moot court teams that compete with teams from other schools. Or they can happen as practice runs for lawyers with real cases. In many law offices, moot courts are routine before appellate arguments, especially for major cases or for lawyers without much appellate argument experience.
In either case, you’ll have at least three experienced lawyers (or perhaps actual judges in the law school context) who’ll act as judges and pepper the students or lawyers with questions.
A “mock trial” (I’ve never heard anyone say “moot trial”) is a practice trial, with witnesses, objections, jury arguments, etc. Volunteers take the parts of witnesses and jurors, and the trial advocacy instructor generally acts as judge.
In Canada, a practice trial between legal students is called a moot trial.
I have heard it a few times in the United States, but generally, our term is a "mock" trial
I've heard the phrase "moot court" rather than "moot trial".
That's the phrase here.
As to Nick Tamen's post, moot courts are a lot easier to organise and present than are mock trials. A moot court gives a set of facts upon which argument can be presented. A mock trial requires pretty good actors to learn a part well enough to be cross-examined in their evidence, something far from easy. Judges and senior members of the bar are usually very generous in donating their time to moots, with a half-decent glass of red over the chat afterwards as the reward.
I've never heard of running a mock appeal as preparation for the real event. It probably would not work in those States with a separate Bar, because barristers are self-employed specialist advocates.
Sometimes, a mock trial is run as part of a focus group. A company that runs focus groups (about ads, products, possible TV shows, etc.) is hired to gather a lot of people as a mock jury pool. The mock trial ensues, and the mock jury evaluates it.
Strictly speaking, 'mock trial' and 'mock court' seem to be tautologous. 'Moot' is of course from the same root as 'meet', and a 'moot' in Anglo-Saxon England was a formal meeting where a point could be argued.
Comments
Loving the typo, and now I have the old song ‘The Streak’ in my head.
Don’t look Ethel!
Gawain is mostly written in alliterative verse which is an older tradition of verse writing compared to the rhyming verse of early Chaucer, which he got from French literature, or later Chaucer, which I believe he got from Italian literature. That said, the alliterative verse of Gawain, and Lsngland is written by writers with no cultural memory of what makes a good alliterative line: the way they use it it is a poor medium for a long poem.
Al, that makes sense. I guess if it's a dominant part of the curriculum, then of course finer distinctions will be made. Middle English was a constant part of our curriculum, with a couple of excellent lecturers (who also taught Old English), but not the main focus, and it seemed quite separate from the other modules - different sort of exam too, at a different time, where we had to translate passages as well as analyse them. We had a lot more lecturers focused on 18th century literature. We had a system where if we wanted to study modern literature, we had to do modules on all the periods beforehand (except Old English, as that was optional, but we still had introductory lectures on it). I really wanted to do the modern modules and the American literature module, so I was sometimes seeing earlier periods more as a means to an end!
Middle English wasn't my favourite, but the main lecturer was great - she was lively and full of energy and totally different from the other lecturers, who were mostly Oxbridge graduates and very traditional, largely male, and some of them quite stuffy without good people skills. She had been a school teacher, done her PhD a bit later in life than the norm, though really knew her stuff. But she was very focused on making Middle English interesting and accessible, so maybe didn't focus so much on the fine distinctions of categories.
Though Chaucer was referred to as Middle English when we did him for A level too, and in the university libraries, he was under the Middle English section, so I guess it was a more systemic thing too.
One point about the area was that it looked very much as if the new, English, occupants moved in respecting the existing boundaries. This may not be general across the country.
The Germanic feature is the first build, right back about 80 AD. I didn't expect that.
The (London, ne Manchester) Guardian offers this: https://www.theguardian.com/media/mind-your-language/2015/jan/16/mind-your-language-moot-point
Apart from the UK use of 'mooted' as a synonym for 'proposed' it seems to me that a common thread between the UK and US issues is that if a point is moot then it doesn't matter: Brits (if I have understood things properly) think that the point has been settled, while Americans think there's no point in trying to settle it.
Practicing lawyers will also do moot courts to prepare for real upcoming arguments before an appellate court.
I have never known either of them to be used IN the UK! But then, I have only lived in the south of England and Yorkshire - there's plenty of other areas.
Same here.
My informant is from Norfolk.
When I was young, I recall "snew" being used as another word for a particular form of "snot" - mucous dangling from the nose. Thus "snew on you", which was the childhood act of pretending to pick your nose and wiping it off on another child. Or at least pretending to.
As it does here, debatable but irrelevant, and used do the same in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (can't speak of Scotland). I don't know where Eirenist gets that interpretation from. It's also used in the mock trial sense mentioned by others.
Here "that's a moot point" means "it doesn't matter."
MMM
I'm with the US on this one.
I've not encountered snew as the past tense of snow, but it could well exist. If it does, it sounds as though it would fit with a Norfolk accent. I have heard and used snown as the participle. Saying both in my head, I've realised I'm not quite sure whether 'snowed' or 'snown' is the one that's actually correct but the spell-checker says 'snowed'.
Are we into the same different that "to table" and "tabling" a motion means? Where, depending on where you live, may mean to start discussing it, to set it aside and never discuss it, or to talk about it later at another meeting. The last one is how it is used where I'm on a couple of boards, usually said as "can we table that for next month?"
Yes, in the UK, "to table a motion" is to place it on the table for discussion. In the US, it is to remove it from discussion (and put it back on a table?) What is Canadian standard?
A irksome issue is that typically we find no Canadian English spell check or usage in most computer programs. The absolute worst is dates. I read medical reports which will say 1/12/2020 and 12/1/2020. Which are either the same date or almost a year apart. Thus we are encouraged to use 2020-12-01 which is the federal gov't usage. I usually handwrite write 01 Dec 2020 for max clarity.
In my understanding (more a UK civil service usage than a regional one), when someone says "That's a moot point" they mean 'Well, people may argue about that , but it's not relevant to this discussion.'
There are quite a few English contranyms having played around with a photographic challenge using them. Are trimmings the bits you cut off fabric or meat (or hair) or the things you use to decorate the same? Do you dust the kitchen surface to add flour for rolling out pastry, or to remove the dust? Have you left the room or are you left behind in the same room?
Yes - my practice is to name the month, like you do here, to avoid any possible confusion. (whilst ISO 8601-style dates are unlikely to cause confusion, they also IMO don't map naturally to the way people usually think. They're great for computer use, to make it easy to sort things in time order, but not so great for humans.)
Flammable and inflammable come to mind. Though both mean burnable, so an "anti-contranym"? I'm also thinking of the oft-heard "unthaw".
Yeah, it's pretty cheesy, but there are a few bits from it that stick in my head forever, and Joey explaining "a moo point" will always be one of them. #NoRegrets
I could never understand it.
In Canadian Presbyterian practice there can be a motion to place a motion under discussion on the table for a number of reasons - unsuitable timing, insufficient information etc. Later, or at a later meeting there can be a motion to lift it it from the table and resume discussion.
I have heard it a few times in the United States, but generally, our term is a "mock" trial
I've heard the phrase "moot court" rather than "moot trial".
In either case, you’ll have at least three experienced lawyers (or perhaps actual judges in the law school context) who’ll act as judges and pepper the students or lawyers with questions.
A “mock trial” (I’ve never heard anyone say “moot trial”) is a practice trial, with witnesses, objections, jury arguments, etc. Volunteers take the parts of witnesses and jurors, and the trial advocacy instructor generally acts as judge.
That's the phrase here.
As to Nick Tamen's post, moot courts are a lot easier to organise and present than are mock trials. A moot court gives a set of facts upon which argument can be presented. A mock trial requires pretty good actors to learn a part well enough to be cross-examined in their evidence, something far from easy. Judges and senior members of the bar are usually very generous in donating their time to moots, with a half-decent glass of red over the chat afterwards as the reward.
I've never heard of running a mock appeal as preparation for the real event. It probably would not work in those States with a separate Bar, because barristers are self-employed specialist advocates.