Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitch
Hell, Red, you're making me reach back into the dim recesses...let's see...Leonhart v. McCormick--a case is "moot" when determinaton is sought on a matter which, when rendered, cannot have any practical effect on the existing controversy."
Under US law, "a moot point" means, one not settled by judicial decisions (thanks, Black's.). An action is considered "moot" when it no longer presents a justiciable controversy because issues involved have become academic or dead. (Black's).
If memory serves, the use of moot legally partly drives the discrepancy between how moot is used in the UK, versus how it's typically used here--but honestly, I don't recall where I first read that.
Hitch
|
I wonder if it is in any way related to the directly opposite usage of "tabling" a discussion. USA: to table a topic is to set it aside for a while and not talk about it now. UK: to table a topic is to BRING it to discussion, right now.
PS for "moot point" the only definition I'm familiar with is "no longer worth discussing because the issue has gone away". Such as a surgery being allow/disallowed but the patient has now died, so the contention is a moot point.
--------------
Not precisely an anger point for me, but I'm noticing how numerous phrases are being affected by the "no dangling thingy*" rule. People, when they die, no longer "pass on", they merely "pass". People, when they give in, no longer "cave in", they merely "cave". In 1990 neither of those was prevalent. Now the two-word form is nearly gone.
*correct word escapes me right now