Nonsense, Brian. The only fact in the public domain is she was editor of the News of the World at the time of some of the hacking. Just knowing who someone is cannot be deemed to hobble a jury. Otherwise no one famous (or infamous) would be tried for anything and they would effectively be above the law.

In the USA there is no restriction on reporting cases. There was recently a well-reported case where a woman was accused of murdering her child. The press crucified her. The circumstational evidence was damning. But there was no evidence that was NOT circumstational and even though the mob was baying for her blood, the jury could not find her guilty and she was duly acquitted. Juries are perfectly capable of doing their job even with notorious defendants.

Jury selection is much better in America. Potential jurors are asked questions to determine if they will consider the evidence before giving a verdict.

'She [Amy Winehouse] weaved suffering into her songs' - headline in today's Independent. Another sign of the decline of the strong form of the past tense - cf. 'slayed' for 'slew', 'wreaked [havoc]' for 'wrought' ?

Not a sign of decline, but confusion (and really, Robin, if you are going to insist that you are not against changes in language, you must stop using pejorative terms).

According to this website, there were originally two different verbs with the present tense 'weave' that had different past tenses, 'wove' and 'weaved'. The former refers to the act of weaving fabric, the latter to the act of moving around to avoid obstacles (as in: 'He weaved in and out of the trees').

In your example, 'wove' would have been the more 'correct' past tense to use.

Thanks, Rachael, I didn't know about that distinction between the two 'weaves.' Very interesting.

But I dispute your suggestion that 'decline' is a pejorative term. How about, 'There has been a decline in reported cases of E.coli since this time last year' ?

Fair point, Robin, 'decline' is not necessarily pejorative. I read it in your post as meaning a falling off which is to be regretted (such as when someone's health is described as being 'in decline').

Actually, reflecting on Rachael's posting, I don't think I'm quite as PC and non-judg(e)mental as I have claimed. I feel in fact feel real pain (thank you for your sympathy, but I'll get over it) when language loses elements of complexity and subtlety, when historically interesting and arguably valuable distinctions (e.g. between British and American usages, between weak and strong verbs) seem to disappear or become eroded. The richer and more ornate a language is, the more things you can do with it.

I always like the analogy between language and the natural world. If a word or a usage dies, the gene pool becomes impoverished. The extinction of a language is as much a tragedy as the extinction of a species.

On the other hand, on the same analogy, I think English should be kept open to enrichment from outside, to robust mongrelisation. New slang, text speech, teenage speech, influences from world English, etc. All great.

What I don't know, and would welcome illumination on, is what it is that determines whether languages become more or less complex - the 'natural history' of language, if you [like] [will]. Does language adapt to its social environment by some sort of process of natural selection, like a living organism? Or is it driven by some sort of inner dynamic towards change? And if so, in what direction? Are there (for example) examples of languages acquiring rather than losing case endings and the subjunctive mood?

I've been amused by the fact this thread appears above 'Superhero's needed'. But then I thought about it - if I were to give them the benefit of the doubt, do you think they really do mean 'Superhero is needed'? Or am I being too charitable?

I think we were all being charitable by not mentioning it.

(mrcee on another thread)

Had to look this one up - love it!

Sorry guys if you do not like the thread title 'Superhero's Needed' and it aint proper english (only joking) but we need many superhero's not just one!

I suppose you could say 'Superhero's are needed' but it sounds a bit boring and for the purpose of getting attention I feel the two words work best!

I suspect it's more the (mis)use of the apostrophe Bumble...

Robin, i suspected that 'my bad' would make it to this thread

Yes 100% 'my bad' but hey as long as people read the thread

Even superheroes (see what I did there?) are answerable to the
Punctuation Police around here.

Look, up in the sky...
Is it a comma, is it a question mark?
... No it's Apostrophe Man

Yes Michael, you have just given me a very good idea for my thread!

An interesting example of Engish usage from across the pond.

The US broadcaster Jon Stewart of the Daily Show said he could understand “not being able to poke fun at a vestigial, powerless anachronism, populated by the most recent incarnation of a centuries-long experiment known as English nobility.”

The piece also has an interesting view on UK TV censorship.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/...31444.html

I too saw this in The Independent (and was interested, incidentally, to note that it is only the delicately reared online readers whom, the newspaper seems to have decided, need protection from naughty (sorry, 'edgy') words like 'goatfucker' - it was printed out in full in the print version).

I wondered why the paper thought we needed to be told about some obscure (I assume) American comic's feeble efforts at satire at the expense of the conventions of British public life. The usual cultural cringe, I expect - 'Isn't it wonderful that comics from the greatest nation in the world deign to notice what's going on in little old England and even crack jokes (albeit totally unfunny ones) about us? You see, there still IS a special relationship!'

Pass me the sick bag, someone.

I can't believe Robin has found how to swear on se23.com without being censored. I guess we just need to place 'goat' in front of any word if we want to swear on the forum.
Presumably The Indy and other sites would not get through parental filters if they allowed swearing on their web pages, there is no such protection in printed publications.
While on the subject of censorship, you can watch The Daily Show online if you reconfigure the internet - see details on http://www.bleedingcool.com/2011/01/08/h...in-the-uk/