He went to the judge to find out who had robbed his house

< Previous | Next >

Li singh

Senior Member
hindi
Hi
Once there lived a rich man in a town. He employed some workers to repair his house. One day, he had to be away. While he was away, one of the workers robbed his house. He came back home only to find that his house had been robbed. Then he went to a judge to find out who had robbed his house. Here, I want to know if " find out who had robbed his house" is ok.
Thanks
 
  • Li singh

    Senior Member
    hindi
    As it is very likely that this would happen, let me know which words /sentences would be used?
     

    heypresto

    Senior Member
    English - England
    :thumbsup: It assumes:

    a) That the police found out about the crime, then caught the culprit, put him through a long process and finally got him to court.
    b) The culprit was found guilty.
    c) That the rich man has found out where and when the trial was held, and who the judge was.
    d) That he found a way to meet the judge, and ask him or her to remember and comment on a specific trial.
    e) That he somehow managed to get the judge to actually name the culprit.
    f) I've probably forgot to mention something.

    Nah.
     

    kentix

    Senior Member
    English - U.S.
    If he came back after one day he is probably the one who found out his house was robbed. He could report that to the police and in reporting the crime to the police he is essentially asking them to investigate and find out who robbed his house.
     

    Egmont

    Senior Member
    English - U.S.
    I think we're getting stuck on Western legal proceedings and the specific tasks of a person whose title in English is "judge" in those proceedings. We're losing sight of the language question: I want to know if " find out who had robbed his house" is ok.

    The answer: yes, it is. Who you go to in order to find out who it was is a legal question, not a language question. Its answers vary from one place to another, and they would often not be in English.
     

    dojibear

    Senior Member
    English - US
    There is no judge who knows "who had robbed his house". So it makes no sense to go to a judge to "find out".

    That is why the sentence grammar is okay, but the meaning is wrong.
     

    Egmont

    Senior Member
    English - U.S.
    ... There is no judge who knows "who had robbed his house". ...
    True in Western legal systems, and assuming the word in some unknown other language that is translated here as "judge" refers to a person who has the same responsibilities as a judge does in those legal systems. We must account for differences in culture, in legal procedures, in the nature of civic positions, and in the issues involved in translating terms that have no precise English equivalent. Can we get off this hangup with what the person referred to as a judge does, and stop assuming that this person does exactly what judges do in the legal systems we're familiar with?

    For example, the word qadi* in Islamic cultures** is usually translated into English as "judge," but a qadi has many responsibilities that a judge in Western legal systems would not have. People often go to a qadi with non-judicial issues, quite possibly including this one. Unless we know what word was used in the original language of this story and what the responsibilities of such a person are, we should stick to the language question.

    ____________________
    *Apologies for using a foreign word in English Only, but there is no way to make this point without doing so.
    **I know the OP's native language is Hindi, so he or she is most likely not from an Islamic culture, but I am using an example I am familiar with. There are similar examples in many other languages, probably including the original language of this story.
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top