Wayne Stollings wrote:
Although perhaps now everyone is tired of my mentioning this, right from the outset I did use the word 'manslaughter' referring to the deaths of the two hunt saboteurs. I thought that this particular word would suffice as the meaning therein is to 'unintentionally kill'.
Well, strictly speaking
the term, "manslaughter", just means, "humankilling", it does not carry any implication as to intention but leaves the matter open. So, strictly speaking,
your usage is not
quite correct. [/quote]
NB I just added the, "not", that was left out of this sentence.
No, it technically was not. The hunters involved did not kill anyone. The sabs were killed by their own misadventure not by by anyone else.
Seeing that Werefox was using the term, "manslaughter", to mean, "unintentional (accidental) killing", and assuming that s/he knew there was a verdict in the case of, "death by misadventure", I also assume that s/he meant to say that the huntsmen were somehow instrumental
in the misadventure viz: somehow caused
The challenge to your usage could only have been based on Posters' assumption of the legal meaning of this word viz: culpable/criminal human killing, without malice aforethought. Obviously, "manslaughter", so defined is very close to, "murder", viz: culpable/criminal human killing withmalice aforethought and, IMO, it is probably this sense of the word that is uppermost in the minds of most people. Many may not even realize that it is, in fact, a special legal usage.
The definition of the word is only tied to the legal usage, just as the misused term "murder" is only tied to the legal usage involving humans.
The definition of a word is the definition of a word - what the word means
it isn't tied to anything. "Man" = "human", and, "slaughter" = "killing", hence, "manslaughter" = "humankilling'. This is the literal meaning
of the word - a matter of semantics. The legal meaning viz: "culpable/criminal/illegal human killing without malice aforethought", is the literal meaning together with
certain legal associations.
"Murder" is illegally killing someone with malice and "manslaughter" is without malice.
That's what I just said.
Main Entry: man·slaugh·ter
: the unlawful killing of a human being without express or implied malice
There is not significant difference between this definition and the one I gave above.
I did not have a dictionary or thesaurus at hand and as you yourself say, debate becomes impossible if an individual cannot mention an event or point without immediately being challenged to prove it to the satisfaction of a court of law. I thank you for your comments here.
My pleasure I assure you. IMO we see far too many, "prove its", and far to few, 'please explains", on this Board.
I agree but we also see far too many improper usages of words that cannot be explained in any other way than the usage was wrong. Too many redefinitions of words will help create such an atmosphere too.
I don't know how many re-definitions there were in this case. All I know is that Werefox explained above that his/her intention in using the word, "manslaughter", was to refer to unintentional (accidental) killing. I took him/her to be expressing the view (notwithstanding a verdict of death by misadventure) that the huntsmen in the case were in some way instrumental
in the deaths of the two hunt sabateurs.
Actually you may want to check out the dictionary Donnie provided as a link. There is but ONE use of the term, which is tied to the legal definition.
You mean to say this dictionary gives only the legal
definition of the term and fails to give an account of the semantics? What would be the point
of consulting such a dictionary?
Might I suggest the discussion go to the Animal Concerns forum instead of here in the Feedback?
Certainly that's fine with me.
I cannot split it but maybe Josh will do so for us.