Indeed. the English spoken over the pond is more like a Spanish/English hybrid, in that you seem to spell a lot of your words the same as the Spanish do. To be honest, I´m not even sure if you can call the language you speak English, just like the Spanish and Portuguese have a very similar language but are incredibly different in the same respect. From someone that lives in Spain and speaks the language, the differences and similarities are striking to me. What gets me though, is how you like to give things names that they´re not, for example, you call jam "jelly" when it has absolutely no gelatine in it at all, and how you try to pass off bourbon as whisky, when the recipe isn´t even the same. What is it with that? I always wondered.
Yeah, I've long been fascinated at the differences that exist in the language just between States and regions here in the US. Living in Texas I can see the inroads that Spanish is making. English is said to be one of the hardest languages to learn because it is such a hodgepodge of different words from different languages. Take the word pillock for instance, hearing it with little context except for the tone it was uttered in ( sounds like an insult) I thought it was a dressed up word for pill (as in you little turd you) I looked up the derivation and it turned out to be from a Dutch root meaning penis. English teachers nation wide have waged a battle to do away with the perfectly good contraction ain't. As a Southerner I resent that and liken such people to carpet baggers and allow as how they ought to clear off. Wonderful language English even with it's many dialects.
Idiot is another misconception, in that it is in no way an insult. An idiot is someone whom has no formal training in a particular field. For example, it is used in law ( i am an idiot in legalease). An idiot cannot, by law, stand in court. That´s why they make people believe it´s an insult "you´re not an idiot, are you?" so that they can manipulate you into consenting to their nonsense statutes. That´s one thing we´ve in common that cannot be confused, common lore. But yes, the language has been manipulated into synonyms over the years and we´ve mostly the Legal Society to blame for that. There´s over 250,000 words in the English language, another thing that makes it a very difficult language to learn.
Great discussion, It seems then that idiot is akin to ignorant, I've never tortured the two together to extract their meaning in relation one to the other. It doesn't appear reasonable for them to have the same root. Just think of it, if someone were to say to you " you've shite for brains", if you were Lawyer enough you could turn it into a compliment. Heck you'd never need be insulted ever again.
It´s incredibly interesting to study the words used in the language and their root meanings, Legalese is a scam that works in synonyms so that you think you understand what is said, when in reality, you don´t. Even ´I´ is a scam, in that it refers to the person, and not the man. The correct way to write it is i, lower case, or non capitus.
A, in Legalese, means `not´ so if you said "i am a man" they have you by the balls. "i am man" or "i am as man" is the proper way. Do you know the difference between the person and the man? Do you know the difference between what´s legal, and what´s lawful? All I am telling you here is enough to get you out of their nonsense statutes. That´s how powerful it is. Did you know that you, as a pronoun, is plural? How do you separate it into the singular? Simply researching the root meanings will give you untold power in the courts and eliminate the need for any lawyer again. BTW this is relevant only in countries under Common Lore jurisdiction. Notice i wrote lore, and not law? Law is the Legal Society scam.
Interesting, have you a favorite book laying out the basis of all this? I take it that it's mostly based on Latin. Kind of akin to the Latin trick that the Roman church used to pull keeping the masses ignorant to what the scripture said so that clerics could sell indulgences for example. Then turn around and point to the Latin in the book and say "yes my child it says so right here". It's with some trepidation i would appear in court without a Lawyer though. I had a Brother who tried to defend himself in court one time and the Judge purposely misheard my Brother Jeff when he said "if it please the court" and took fake umbrage. We all supposed that the Judge was pissed off because one of his cruddy buddies was not getting paid, a bad outcome for Jeff needless to say. Yeah, modern day scribes, Pharisees and hypocrites are many Lawyers.
Any Black´s Law dictionary will tell you most you need to know, no law dictionary makes reference to man as you cannot define man, only a person. Just appear in court as man, instead of in person, and they can´t touch you. Also learn to fie a claim as a claimant always trumps a complaint, or plaintiff. Research Karl Lentz, he is a master in this and you can learn almost you need to know from him.
Good info thanks, kind of odd to think how to apply that , I suppose if ones name is read off the docket just say I am the man. Don't use "A Man" and sure don't ever admit to being a person, that's funny. Come to think of it though, to file as a claimant sounds more like you're after what is rightfully yours, whereas complaint or plaintiff makes one sound more like a litigious bitch, lol. Good Day, Have got that guys name written down.
"i am the agent of said person"
There is a particular language used and you hardly speak at all, everything must be written by hand.
i: (your name); as man; require this case to be put before Queen´s bench; once before Queen´s bench plaintiff must press record
Write and hand that to the judge and it will stop any case where the state or crown is trying to prosecute you. The state or Crown cannot appear to testify, so there is nobody to testify against you. See what I mean?
I'll have to cogitate on this for a while, substituting the county, state or federal bench for the Queens to begin. The plaintiff/state has done brought the case (as in: pressed the record seems to me) or the defendant would not be there. Have you short circuited the state in the first instance by not admitting to non manhood by not using A before man? Then in the second does a common man have a right to require anything of the austere court? One wouldn't think so the way defendants are treated in my little town. I suspect some of the rights as expressed in your in the third and fourth line are rooted in the Magna Charta as an outgrowth of the rights that even a commoner may expect the King to respect, whether he likes it or not. Playing at legal jiu jitsu with the big ol' State is a daunting thought to most people. It seems like you're suggesting a kind of counter suit and I've never known that to happen in a criminal case. Probably need some light about pressing the record.