The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Outside of understanding that people are outstanding for ... Options
coag
Posted: Friday, January 26, 2018 2:30:07 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/27/2010
Posts: 989
Neurons: 4,983
Could someone, please, interpret the last sentence to me. I have no idea what this sentence means.


(Toronto Star)

Toronto police believe Barry and Honey Sherman were victims of a targeted attack and are treating their deaths as murders, the lead investigator said Friday afternoon.

The Shermans were found dead in their North York home just before noon on Fri. Dec. 15. An autopsy concluded they died from “ligature compression.” Det.-Sgt. Susan Gomes declined to discuss possible suspects or motives at a news conference, citing only “six weeks of investigation” as evidence. There was no sign of forced entry into their home.

“I believe they were targeted,” said Gomes. “We haven’t developed any suspects, outside of understanding that people are outstanding for — or a person is outstanding for — this offence.”
FounDit
Posted: Friday, January 26, 2018 2:54:44 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 8,576
Neurons: 46,097
The person speaking simply lost their train of thought and rambled a bit (what we sometimes refer to as becoming 'tongue-tied'). They were simply saying they believe the couple was targeted but they haven't any suspects yet.


A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
Харбин Хэйлунцзян 1
Posted: Friday, January 26, 2018 2:55:29 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/13/2015
Posts: 1,356
Neurons: 488,183
Location: Dzerzhinskiy, Moskovskaya, Russia
coag wrote:
“We haven’t developed any suspects, outside of understanding that people are outstanding for — or a person is outstanding for — this offence.”

Either of two:

the person is prominent for the offence.
the person's time has not yet been paid for the crime committed.

I choose the latter. Though it is a trivial thing to understand for a Toronto police sergeant. :)


აბა ყვავებს ვინ დაიჭერს, კარგო? გალიაში ბულბულები ზიან.
Sarrriesfan
Posted: Friday, January 26, 2018 3:39:07 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/30/2016
Posts: 846
Neurons: 5,389
Location: Luton, England, United Kingdom
I agree with FounDit, the Police know that the couple were murdered but as yet have no clues as to who killed them.

I lack the imagination for a witty signature.
Fyfardens
Posted: Friday, January 26, 2018 3:57:13 PM
Rank: Member

Joined: 12/16/2017
Posts: 333
Neurons: 4,589
FounDit wrote:
The person speaking simply lost their train of thought and rambled a bit.


Quite. Most of us do it in unscripted speech. Some of us do it in writing. Some student grammar books give the impression that native speakers usually speak, and always write, coherently. Would that we did!

(This is not the Politics forum, so I won't mention D..' Silenced ).

I speak British English (standard southern, slightly dated).
Romany
Posted: Friday, January 26, 2018 3:58:59 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 13,795
Neurons: 42,273
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom

I read it a little differently: I thought it referred to the term "there's a warrant outstanding...." (or is it "outstanding warrant"?) for the people or person that had committed the offence?

Fyfardens
Posted: Friday, January 26, 2018 4:13:48 PM
Rank: Member

Joined: 12/16/2017
Posts: 333
Neurons: 4,589
Actually, I will mention Donald Trump, in a non-political way.

Much of what he has said has been analysed and mocked from a linguistic/style viewpoint. As somebody who values logical thought and clarity and precision in speech (even if I fail dismally in my own attempts), I am appalled by the (to me) garbage that comes out of his mouth sometimes. BUT, he speaks in a way that many people think is normal and natural. That is the way they and their friends and family speak. To them, the language of the Obamas and Clintons of this world is unnatural, artificial. It seems designed to deceive.

If we attempt to seriously analyse the words of the police officer quoted in the original question in this thread, we must conclude that they are meaningless near-gibberish. However, I am fairly sure that most of the people who heard, rather than read, those words would have felt that they understood the message s/he was trying to convey.

I speak British English (standard southern, slightly dated).
Fyfardens
Posted: Friday, January 26, 2018 4:16:35 PM
Rank: Member

Joined: 12/16/2017
Posts: 333
Neurons: 4,589
Romany wrote:
I read it a little differently: I thought it referred to the term "there's a warrant outstanding...." (or is it "outstanding warrant"?) for the people or person that had committed the offence?

That's a possibility that had not occurred to me. If that's what was meant, it certainly wasn't clearly expressed.

I speak British English (standard southern, slightly dated).
thar
Posted: Friday, January 26, 2018 5:04:25 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/8/2010
Posts: 16,560
Neurons: 66,343
To me it is a very strange use of 'outstanding'. Even allowing for losing track a bit mid-sentence.

My reading of it is 'we have no suspects'... but we know.... 'someone or more than one someone must have done it'.
Харбин Хэйлунцзян 1
Posted: Friday, January 26, 2018 5:07:22 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/13/2015
Posts: 1,356
Neurons: 488,183
Location: Dzerzhinskiy, Moskovskaya, Russia
thar wrote:
My reading of it is 'we have no suspects'... but we know.... 'someone or more than one someone must have done it'.

That's it. A warrant could not have been issued without a name on it.


აბა ყვავებს ვინ დაიჭერს, კარგო? გალიაში ბულბულები ზიან.
NKM
Posted: Friday, January 26, 2018 7:23:52 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 2/14/2015
Posts: 4,327
Neurons: 207,389
Location: Corinth, New York, United States
I can't see how that use of the word "outstanding" (in this sentence) is anything other than gibberish. I don't know what the speaker was thinking.

thar
Posted: Saturday, January 27, 2018 1:24:08 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/8/2010
Posts: 16,560
Neurons: 66,343
NKM wrote:
I can't see how that use of the word "outstanding" (in this sentence) is anything other than gibberish. I don't know what the speaker was thinking.



"Oh God, this is so embarrassing, please let this all go away. We called it murder-suicide and now we have to admit it was two murders and we look like idiots and we don't have a clue who did it and the simplest explanation is that it's a hit arranged by the family but they were the ones who hired investigators sand proved it wasn't murder-suicide and God get me out of here!"
Romany
Posted: Sunday, January 28, 2018 5:54:15 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 13,795
Neurons: 42,273
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom

It is, after all, an old journalistic measure. If you can't paraphrase what a person says (eg they don't seem to make much sense) you quote them directly. Protects the journalist from "guessing" what's meant and being accused of misrepresentation.

The direct transcript of what the average person (i.e. not a person used to the spotlight) says when a mike is shoved in front of them, is usually glossed to get rid of all the "ums" and "err"s and slight confusions, when being reported. When you really are confused and short on time, quoting them directly is sometimes the best option.
thar
Posted: Sunday, January 28, 2018 6:17:52 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/8/2010
Posts: 16,560
Neurons: 66,343
Yes, but this was a police spokesperson, wasn't it? Or a senior officer. Sort of their job to be clear!

But I do get 'outstanding, in a funny kind of way.
A task is outstanding if you haven't done it yet, haven't got to it yet.
And these unknown put postulated murder suspects - well, the police certainly haven't got to them yet! Whistle
taurine
Posted: Sunday, January 28, 2018 7:42:51 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/20/2016
Posts: 835
Neurons: 64,579
Location: South Dublin, Ireland
I agree with Харбин Хэйлунцзян 1 who wrote: the person is prominent for the offence.

Prominent: Immediately noticeable; conspicuous: a product with a prominent place in the store.
Noticeable or conspicuous: "Thiamine deficiency alone generally produces peripheral neuritis and numbness as its most outstanding features"
Conspicuous: Attracting attention, as by being unusual or remarkable.
This means that it could be understood in both ways, either related to the victim or to the suspect.

The Police haven't developed any suspect but certainly they are currently developing, that is, they are gradually acquiring necessary information leading potentially to the moment when they could state that they developed (a) suspect/suspects.

Offensive remarks made by Fyfardens who wrote: If we attempt to seriously analyse the words of the police officer quoted in the original question in this thread, we must conclude that they are meaningless near-gibberish are not helpful at all.

Police officer cannot at this stage of investigation make widely known details of their efforts to solve the problem. He/She said what was allowed to disclose and it is up to audience to interpret it. This doesn't mean that if we attempt to seriously analyze the words of the police officer quoted we must conclude that they are meaningless near-gibberish.

J'ai perdu mes amis en Afrique durant la dernière semaine de 2017
Romany
Posted: Sunday, January 28, 2018 9:20:55 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 13,795
Neurons: 42,273
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom

Taurine - I'm not questioning what you have written - those are your thoughts on the subject.

However, the subjective adjective "offensive" in reference to Fyfa's post is misplaced.

Fyfa was neither rude nor impolite; he did not make any personal comments; he did not contradict anyone; he didn't "flame"; he didn't swear; he didn't accuse anyone of anything.

There are billions of people in the world. Each has their own thoughts. If their thoughts differ from one's own - or indeed from those of a lot of other people - this is not offensive. It's life. Everyone is different and has the right to be different; with this comes the right to express those thoughts...unless those thoughts are concerned with hurting, attacking, humiliating or otherwise being anti-social.

Fyfa's first paragraph detailed what he was talking about - his second para. carried on from that and expressed his opinion. Whether one agrees or not, likes what was said or not, or is completely indifferent, doesn't make that content "offensive".

It could be said more truly that it is "offensive" to post comments which wrongly accuse someone of something they have never done or said.

But, at the very least, it certainly doesn't encourage peace, friendship or understanding! Words can be weapons. We must always take care in how we use them.
taurine
Posted: Sunday, January 28, 2018 9:46:00 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/20/2016
Posts: 835
Neurons: 64,579
Location: South Dublin, Ireland
The matter in question concerns death of married people.
Those people were important for the society.
Alleging that we must conclude that the Police comments are meaningless near-gibberish is offensive to the work of Police and to the reason some of us possess.

In the result not my comments are misplaced.

I believe that Police in this case engaged substantial resources, not material but intellectual as well.
Any one who writes before the case is closed that Police comments are meaningless displays reckless opinion offensive to the people who are thinking of victims. Not to the members of their family, only.


I lost friends in Africa during the last week of 2017 year.

J'ai perdu mes amis en Afrique durant la dernière semaine de 2017
Fyfardens
Posted: Sunday, January 28, 2018 4:07:56 PM
Rank: Member

Joined: 12/16/2017
Posts: 333
Neurons: 4,589
Romany wrote:
Fyfa was neither rude nor impolite; he did not make any personal comments; he did not contradict anyone; he didn't "flame"; he didn't swear; he didn't accuse anyone of anything.[...]

Fyfa's first paragraph detailed what he was talking about - his second para. carried on from that and expressed his opinion. Whether one agrees or not, likes what was said or not, or is completely indifferent, doesn't make that content "offensive".


Thank you.

This being a publicly accessible forum, I assume that I have the right to challenge/disagree with opinions expressed by others, and I accept that my own views may be challenged/disagreed with.

It would be a pretty dull forum if members were expected to agree with each other all the time.
.

I speak British English (standard southern, slightly dated).
coag
Posted: Sunday, January 28, 2018 7:27:02 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/27/2010
Posts: 989
Neurons: 4,983
I don't see anything offensive in Fyfardens' comments. This is a language forum and he expressed his opinion about the language question asked.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines. Copyright © 2008-2018 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.