Re: "Kill" vs. "cause to die" (was: "Transferral" verb form...)

Tim May scripsit:

> Well, this may be the way these words are used in court, and in legal
> documents, but I think you would be able to say you killed them in
> non-formal speech.  After all, you can say Stalin killed millions,
Stalin's out of the case: he intended those deaths, even if he didn't
do them with his own hand.  Indeed, that heightens his guilt, for he
had not even the bad excuse of superior orders.

> and you can say that a driver
> killed a pedestrian in an accident, even though it wasn't deliberate.
Deliberate, no, but the driver is still an agent.  The shouter isn't
an agent in the avalanche, and that's why "kill" is mal apropos.
I think that's the fundamental point: the subject of "kill" has to be
an agent, not merely a cause.  ("Pollution killed many fish today"
is not really a counterexample, because it is personification.)

> It might be considered misleading, but not technically inaccurate.
I think the opposite: technically inaccurate, but perhaps understandable.
In grief the shouter might say "I killed those people!" but I think he
would be contradicted.

--
John Cowan <jcowan@...>     http://www.reutershealth.com
I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen,    http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith.  --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_

Reply