Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2010 February 19

= February 19 =

"The statute of limitations has expired"
Why do people say "the statute of limitations has expired"? The statute itself certainly has not expired. Quite the opposite, what people really mean is that the statute has kicked in! --173.49.9.55 (talk) 02:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Possibly for the same reason that we park on the driveway, and drive on the parkway. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * And often there's no such thing as a "statute of limitations" applying to the particular offence in the particular jurisdiction. Just as there's no "law of averages" that can be adduced to explain every conceivable event in the history of the known universe.   --  202.142.129.66 (talk) 03:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That detail was also mentioned in one of the ref desks a day or two ago where someone was asking about the statute of limitations in regard to Roman "Pulaski". Don't know if it was the same IP or not. It's kind of amusing to have two questions about such a specific thing in the same week. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * well, the Pulaski thing was hursday - he's not likely to use an IP


 * the reason people say the statute of limitations has expired (or passed) is that it's a corruption of the longer phrase "The time in which the crime could be prosecuted under the statute of limitations has expired." It's basically the same effect as my own personal pet peeve "breaking the law", which is nonsensical shorthand for the older phrase "breaking the peace established by law".  mostly I think that people have a hard time with legal concepts and tend to muck them up.  -- Ludwigs 2  04:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I would say "breaking the law" is equivalent to "breaking the rules", basically a colloquialism for "violating" the laws/rules. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Either way, it's just an odd and annoying turn of phrase. Wittgenstein would have had a field day with it.  -- Ludwigs 2  05:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a firmly established idiom, and no appeal to Wittgenstein will ever change this. You have one choice (= no choice): get over it. --  Jack of Oz   ... speak! ...   07:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Have a field day" is an odd and annoying turn of phrase too. What does that even mean? Philosophers don't do field work! Adam Bishop (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Field day (an article on everything, we have here) 75.41.110.200 (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact, we do have an article on everything. so there. -- Ludwigs 2  17:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It stuns me that anyone, but particularly regular contributors to the Language reference desk, is "annoyed" by extremely commonly used idiomatic expressions that don't happen to be literally true. How did you ever get through your lives up till this point without regularly contemplating suicide?  Are you all in such a permanent state of psychological turmoil over the richness of our language that you would, if you had the power, outlaw any expression that a robot could not deal with?  --  Jack of Oz   ... speak! ...   18:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * what makes you think I have gotten through my life to this point without regularly contemplating suicide?
 * I don't mind idiom, but I do mind idiom that's wrong. 'breaking the peace established by law' suggests the necessity for enforcing neighborliness in a liberal democratic society; 'breaking the law' is an authoritative claim about the necessity of obedience to rules qua rules.  -- Ludwigs 2  19:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Surely you're joking, Ludwigs2. Please tell me you're joking.  Do you seriously expect ordinary men and women to talk about "breaking the peace established by law"?  Fat chance, my friend; not even trained lawyers talk in such terms.  But more to the point, there's no such thing as an "idiom that's wrong".  Idioms are what they are.  Languages develop certain forms of idiomatic expression, and people know what others are talking about, even if a forensic examination of the individual words might lead one elsewhere.  That would be as worthless and silly an exercise as subjecting the manuscript of War and Peace or Beethoven's 9th Symphony to scientific examination and concluding that they had no more value than the cost of the paper and ink.  I know you know this, so your entreaties fall into the category of confected outrage.  I have yet to divine what your real, underlying point is.  --  Jack of Oz   ... speak! ...   20:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I expect people to say 'breaking the peace' or 'violating the law'. and where is this coming from, anyway?  have you even read Wittgenstein?  because, seriously, he'd have a field day discussing the odd language games you're playing now, too. if you're jonesing for a philosophical spitball fight, let's do it somewhere else.   -- Ludwigs 2  21:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Continued @ User_talk:Ludwigs2. --  Jack of Oz   ... speak! ...   22:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And yes, the Roman Polanski question was here, posed by hursday early on Thursday. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that this is a colloquialism. In a more formal context, a lawyer might say "the limitations period has expired," "the claim is barred by the statute of limitation," or "the action is time-barred." John M Baker (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It certainly is a colloquialism. Statutes do not usually expire, at least not spontaneously. Psycholinguistically, it might be argued that there is a subtext "the limitation has been reached and the possibility of sanction has expired", and that both have become contaminated. Conversely, a statute of limitations might be viewed as a statute regulating how long (to what time limit) some misdemeanour might be prosecuted, and therefore the [extent of the] statute may expire. Bessel Dekker (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

My hovercraft is full of eels
How would you say "My hovercraft is full of eels" in Na'vi? 149.169.221.57 (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I found Translations of My hovercraft is full of eels in many languages, but not in the specified language.
 * -- Wavelength (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Navi was a made up language for a film, so the vocabulary is very, very limited. Besides, why would they have a word for a creature that does not live on their moon that they have never encountered?  We do not have much of a chance of helping on this question.  Googlemeister (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * plus, why would an (essentially) stone age tribe have a word for 'hovercraft'? -- Ludwigs 2 21:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I read where someone developed words in Latin for things like airplanes, so it would probably be possible with "hovercraft" - it would just be a very long word, such as the combination of "boat," "sail," and "air." However, that is only possible becuase once they saw one, they would have a frame of reference. An eel, that would be a little more difficult, as without examining it they wouldn't really be able to tell how to distinguish it from any of the creatures on their moon.It would be doable, but not quite at first glance like a craft that was floating on air as a boat would on water.209.244.187.155 (talk) 21:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It's actually pretty possible that they would borrow the word from English as a loanword, or from the first human language they hear in which these particular things are mentioned. -- KageTora - (影虎) (A word...?) 01:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So perhaps knowing how to say "my _ is full of __s" would be sufficient. — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]  01:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * oeyä kunsìpur sawtute teya si (my gunship is full of humans) Willphase (talk) 04:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, with 'kunsìp' being a loanword from English, 'gunship'. -- KageTora - (影虎) (A word...?) 19:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Which is the word for human? — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]  21:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Try our article, Na'vi language. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 18:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)