3 ms·

prosecute: to officially accuse someone of committing an illegal act, and to bring a case against that person in a court of law Source: Cambridge's dictionary

prosecute: to officially accuse someone of committing an illegal act, and to bring a case against that person in a court of law Source: Cambridge's dictionary (but any other would work as well)

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> From Cambridge's (or any other) dictionary Where did you get this? I'm seeing "to officially accuse someone of committing a crime" [1]. Criminality is esssential to the term. (EDIT: Found it. Cambridge Academic Content dictionary. It seems to be a simplified text [2]. I'm surprised they summarised the legal definition that way versus going for the colloquial one.) You have to go back to the 18th century to find the term used to refer to initiating any legal action [3][4]. [1] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/prosecute https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/prosecut... [2] https://www.cambridge.org/us/cambridgeenglish/catalog/dictionaries/cambridge-academic-content-dictionary https://www.cambridge.org/us/cambridgeenglish/catalog/dictio... [3] https://verejnazaloba.cz/en/more-about-public-prosecution/history-of-public-prosecution/ https://verejnazaloba.cz/en/more-about-public-prosecution/hi... [4] https://www.etymonline.com/word/prosecute https://www.etymonline.com/word/prosecute
- selimthegrim 2y ago
  I think it’s still common informal usage to prosecute a (moral) case. Maybe more common in the UK where you can bring a literal private prosecution. Although I think what lawyers say these days is that it’s not colorable.
  - amenhotep 2y ago
    Why would that make it more common in the UK? Being able to bring a private prosecution strengthens the distinction, a regular citizen can both sue someone for a civil offense and prosecute someone for a criminal offense. It makes it more clearly nonsense to refer to suing someone for slandering you as "prosecuting" them because you can bring prosecutions and that is not one!
    - selimthegrim 2y ago
      Like I said, a moral case. There are also things like “trial of the facts”
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > it’s still common informal usage to prosecute a (moral) case Sure, those are other definitions [1], e.g. to prosecute an argument. Within a legal context, however, it is black and white. > in the UK where you can bring a literal private prosecution For crimes. One wouldn't say one is prosecuting a defendant for e.g. libel. (Some states have private prosecution [2].) [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prosecute https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prosecute [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prosecution#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prosecution#United_Sta...
    - selimthegrim 2y ago
      I didn’t know that about the states. Thanks.
    - Gormo 2y ago
      The third definition listed on your Merriam-Webster link seems to be what's applicable here, and very clearly describes the term as applicable to any legal action. This is consistent with my understanding of the term as a native English speaker, having experienced the term "prosecute" being used in reference to both criminal and civil cases in all forms of discourse, verbal and written, formal and informal, for decades, and only first encountering the claim that it shouldn't be used for civil cases here in this thread, today.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > very clearly describes the term as applicable to any legal action…only first encountering the claim that it shouldn't be used for civil cases here in this thread, today Partly why I used that citation. It’s one of the few (adult) dictionaries that acknowledges as much. I wouldn’t go so far as to say the Webster 3b usage is incorrect—it’s in some dictionaries and was historically unambiguously correct. But it’s non-standard to a high degree, to the extent that Black’s Law Dictionary only contains the criminal variant. (I’ll leave it open whether publicly referring to someone who has only been sued as someone who has been prosecuted, when intended as an attack, qualifies as defamation.) More to the point of clear communication, I’d put it in a similar category as claiming one’s usage of terrific or silly was intended in its historic sense [1]. (Though I’ll admit my use of “nice” falls in that category.) All that said, I’m very willing to entertain there being a dialect, probably in America, where the historic use is still common. [1] https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/84307/7-words-mean-opposite-what-they-used https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/84307/7-words-mean-oppos...
- moralestapia 2y ago
  Scroll down on that site, literally. Words have more that one meaning. Here's what I get from MacOS's dictionary: institute legal proceedings against (a person or organization). I can also be pedantic and insist that, even under the strict interpretation you are vouching for ... >Looking/sounding like somebody else (even if its famous) is not prosecutable. ... is a correct argument.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    If this is really your hill to die on, go for it. Using “prosecute” to refer to civil litigation is not standard English in any dialect circa 1850.
    - moralestapia 2y ago
      Easy peasy, yes/no answer. From your understanding, is looking/sounding like somebody else (even if its famous) prosecutable or not?
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > is looking/sounding like somebody else (even if its famous) prosecutable or not? No. And if a lawmaker claimed they would like it to be, and then claimed they meant civilly litigible, they’d be labelled dishonest. (Even if it was an honest mistake.)
        moralestapia 2y ago
        >Looking/sounding like somebody else (even if its famous) is not prosecutable. Great, then we agree. :^)
        CRConrad 2y ago
        Yeah, I agree too. It's not prosecutable... But it is sue-able. So, to return to your original point: Did you have one?
johnbellone 2y ago
Go away with the “well, actually”. It’s a civil dispute.
- Gormo 2y ago
  The term "prosecution" applies to civil cases as well as criminal ones.

prosecute: to officially accuse someone of committing an illegal act, and to bring a case against that person in a court of law Source: Cambridge's dictionary (but any other would work as well)

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> From Cambridge's (or any other) dictionary Where did you get this? I'm seeing "to officially accuse someone of committing a crime" [1]. Criminality is esssential to the term. (EDIT: Found it. Cambridge Academic Content dictionary. It seems to be a simplified text [2]. I'm surprised they summarised the legal definition that way versus going for the colloquial one.) You have to go back to the 18th century to find the term used to refer to initiating any legal action [3][4]. [1] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/prosecute https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/prosecut... [2] https://www.cambridge.org/us/cambridgeenglish/catalog/dictionaries/cambridge-academic-content-dictionary https://www.cambridge.org/us/cambridgeenglish/catalog/dictio... [3] https://verejnazaloba.cz/en/more-about-public-prosecution/history-of-public-prosecution/ https://verejnazaloba.cz/en/more-about-public-prosecution/hi... [4] https://www.etymonline.com/word/prosecute https://www.etymonline.com/word/prosecute

selimthegrim 2y ago
I think it’s still common informal usage to prosecute a (moral) case. Maybe more common in the UK where you can bring a literal private prosecution. Although I think what lawyers say these days is that it’s not colorable.
- amenhotep 2y ago
  Why would that make it more common in the UK? Being able to bring a private prosecution strengthens the distinction, a regular citizen can both sue someone for a civil offense and prosecute someone for a criminal offense. It makes it more clearly nonsense to refer to suing someone for slandering you as "prosecuting" them because you can bring prosecutions and that is not one!
  - selimthegrim 2y ago
    Like I said, a moral case. There are also things like “trial of the facts”
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > it’s still common informal usage to prosecute a (moral) case Sure, those are other definitions [1], e.g. to prosecute an argument. Within a legal context, however, it is black and white. > in the UK where you can bring a literal private prosecution For crimes. One wouldn't say one is prosecuting a defendant for e.g. libel. (Some states have private prosecution [2].) [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prosecute https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prosecute [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prosecution#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prosecution#United_Sta...
  - selimthegrim 2y ago
    I didn’t know that about the states. Thanks.
  - Gormo 2y ago
    The third definition listed on your Merriam-Webster link seems to be what's applicable here, and very clearly describes the term as applicable to any legal action. This is consistent with my understanding of the term as a native English speaker, having experienced the term "prosecute" being used in reference to both criminal and civil cases in all forms of discourse, verbal and written, formal and informal, for decades, and only first encountering the claim that it shouldn't be used for civil cases here in this thread, today.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > very clearly describes the term as applicable to any legal action…only first encountering the claim that it shouldn't be used for civil cases here in this thread, today Partly why I used that citation. It’s one of the few (adult) dictionaries that acknowledges as much. I wouldn’t go so far as to say the Webster 3b usage is incorrect—it’s in some dictionaries and was historically unambiguously correct. But it’s non-standard to a high degree, to the extent that Black’s Law Dictionary only contains the criminal variant. (I’ll leave it open whether publicly referring to someone who has only been sued as someone who has been prosecuted, when intended as an attack, qualifies as defamation.) More to the point of clear communication, I’d put it in a similar category as claiming one’s usage of terrific or silly was intended in its historic sense [1]. (Though I’ll admit my use of “nice” falls in that category.) All that said, I’m very willing to entertain there being a dialect, probably in America, where the historic use is still common. [1] https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/84307/7-words-mean-opposite-what-they-used https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/84307/7-words-mean-oppos...
moralestapia 2y ago
Scroll down on that site, literally. Words have more that one meaning. Here's what I get from MacOS's dictionary: institute legal proceedings against (a person or organization). I can also be pedantic and insist that, even under the strict interpretation you are vouching for ... >Looking/sounding like somebody else (even if its famous) is not prosecutable. ... is a correct argument.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  If this is really your hill to die on, go for it. Using “prosecute” to refer to civil litigation is not standard English in any dialect circa 1850.
  - moralestapia 2y ago
    Easy peasy, yes/no answer. From your understanding, is looking/sounding like somebody else (even if its famous) prosecutable or not?
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > is looking/sounding like somebody else (even if its famous) prosecutable or not? No. And if a lawmaker claimed they would like it to be, and then claimed they meant civilly litigible, they’d be labelled dishonest. (Even if it was an honest mistake.)
      - moralestapia 2y ago
        >Looking/sounding like somebody else (even if its famous) is not prosecutable. Great, then we agree. :^)
        CRConrad 2y ago
        Yeah, I agree too. It's not prosecutable... But it is sue-able. So, to return to your original point: Did you have one?

johnbellone 2y ago

Go away with the “well, actually”. It’s a civil dispute.

Gormo 2y ago
The term "prosecution" applies to civil cases as well as criminal ones.