[Thad E Ginathom]

Nonsense from The Newspaper

The New Indian Express once again shows that its staff don't actually speak English.

C. first came under city police radar years ago .... ... ...

Which actually means that they would not have spotted him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpAj1kn-Cr8

But at least, this time, it not that mysterious scanner of which journalists are so fond. Oh! Maybe that was classified!

[noopster]

Thad's hilarious escapade in the bedroom (no, no it's not what you think!) led me to my word discovery of the day:

Phantosmia (smelling odours that aren't there)

Link

[tilt]

Originally Posted by noopster

Thad's hilarious escapade in the bedroom (no, no it's not what you think!) led me to my word discovery of the day:


Link

Wow, I actually have that condition. I never realised there was a word for it; I thought I was the only one with the condition and therefore I was slowly becoming senile or crazy.

I refer to it as "olfactory hallucinations". I know hallucinations are visual and not olfactory; but this was the closest I could come to accurately describing it.

Cheers

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by noopster

Thad's hilarious escapade in the bedroom ... ... ...

Well, guys, just between you and me, and don't dare to tell anyone else but I believe I have isolated this mysterious odour --- to my poor wife! It is a good thing the AC engineer never turned up!

She has been in the habit of eating a little raw onion (just two or three sambar onions, nothing much). for a long time, without so much as a whiff on the breath, so why this strong symptom should suddenly happen I have no idea. She is now giving them up for a while.

But I accept (but don't do it) that eating raw onion is good for the health. We are also googling the antidotes. Or antismells. It seems that there are certain things (including apples!) that actually react with the smelly sulphur compounds in onion so that they are not passed through the blood to the lungs and thence exhaled.

And a by the way... Years ago, I learned that Garlic is processed very quickly by our bodies. Excretion through the skin starts minutes after eating it!

I'm actually more of a garlic man than an onion man. But, when it comes to intimacy, it is absolutely essential that both parties should have been eating it!

[anupmathur]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

.... But, when it comes to intimacy, it is absolutely essential that both parties should have been eating it!

Which is why the Koreans have never had a problem on account of this smell!

[anupmathur]

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/c...w/58402871.cms

[mayankk]

Originally Posted by anupmathur

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/c...w/58402871.cms

Wow!!
Roots AND top three!!! Thats a sandwich right there on JEE results!

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by anupmathur

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/c...w/58402871.cms

Boys rule the roots

Wow... had to think hard about this one before I got it! The trouble is that, even if the author knew what a roost is, the subeditor and/or typesetter probably didn't.

By the way, have I ranted about the word get/got recently?

As in, for example, something got over. No it didn't: it finished, or ran out.

The misuse of get/got in Indian English is so rife it has become standardised, and thus has become "correct." But for those who care, think hard every time you use this word, because you probably shouldn't be!

Thanks. Now I am going to get my lunch

[mayankk]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

But for those who care, think hard every time you use this word, because you probably shouldn't be!

....every time before using this word, because you probably shouldn't be.
....every time before you use this word, because you shouldn't.

I've already had my lunch.

[Thad E Ginathom]

...One of those colloquial English situations where the rest of the sentence ("...using it") is understood.

I thought it might raise eyebrows. Quoting my teachers might be appropriate: Could do better!

[mayankk]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

I thought it might raise eyebrows. Quoting my teachers might be appropriate: Could do better!

Mine were pretty steadfast in their opinion. It was mostly "disappointed"!!!
They could have done better too.

[samaspire]

... by causing death of person other than person whose death was intended.--If a person, by doing anything which he intends or knows to be likely to cause death, commits culpable homicide by causing the death of any person, whose death he neither intends nor knows himself to be likely to cause, the culpable homicide committed by the offender is of the description of which it would have been if he had caused the death of the person whose death he intended or knew himself to be likely to cause

—  Indian Penal Code, 1860

Lawyer Talk!! Does it really have to be so complicated!!

[Thad E Ginathom]

Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.

Sometimes the law uses a lot of words for precision and the absence of ambiguity. Sometimes it does so to make sure we need to pay lawyers. Sometimes, of course, it is just badly written!

[tilt]

Originally Posted by samaspire

... by causing death of person other than person whose death was intended.--If a person, by doing anything which he intends or knows to be likely to cause death, commits culpable homicide by causing the death of any person, whose death he neither intends nor knows himself to be likely to cause, the culpable homicide committed by the offender is of the description of which it would have been if he had caused the death of the person whose death he intended or knew himself to be likely to cause

—  Indian Penal Code, 1860

Lawyer Talk!! Does it really have to be so complicated!!

Er... what's complicated about this? It's quite clear. If you do something that you know could kill someone, and you do it; and if by your doing it, someone does die (without your intending to kill him or even without your knowing for sure that you're the cause), then in that case, you cannot claim that it was an accident that he died. The whole incident will be treated the same way as when you knew that it would kill him and you still intentionally did it just to kill him.

That long and convoluted explanation (with bad grammar thrown in) is exactly what is written in your quote. So, like Thad said, it is phrased such that all ambiguity is removed.

Cheers

[binand]

Originally Posted by samaspire

... by causing death of person other than person whose death was intended.--If a person, by doing anything which he intends or knows to be likely to cause death, commits culpable homicide by causing the death of any person, whose death he neither intends nor knows himself to be likely to cause, the culpable homicide committed by the offender is of the description of which it would have been if he had caused the death of the person whose death he intended or knew himself to be likely to cause

The problem with this is that it merges two situations into one law. If they had split it into two sub-paragraphs it would have been much clearer.

In essence - if you did something with the intention of killing someone, and someone else dies, you are guilty of the crime that would have been charged had you managed to kill the person who you intended to kill.

Similarly if you did something knowing it would kill someone, and someone else dies, then you are guilty of the crime that would have been charged had you managed to kill the person who you knew would be killed.

Basically you cannot claim "please charge me with causing accidental death rather than with murder because I had no intention of killing the person who actually died; I was planning to kill someone else" and variations.

Presumably it was written into the rulebooks because people had tried this escape route in the past.