Quote:
Originally Posted by GinaS
I don't think I see the distinction between your examples. There's no more evidence that the sailor has drowned (or is even dead) in your second example than there is to assign nationality in your first. Both conclusions are not unreasonable however, given their circumstances.
|
Hmm, looking at it, you're right my assume example isn't so good. It would more be something like 'I generally assume that my mother is in whenever I drop round, regardless of the time, or whether or not I call in advance.' I'm attributing a high probability of meeting her for mostly arbitrary reasons.
However, with the missing sailor and a wrecked ship at sea, it would be incredibly odd to conclude that he was, for example, shot rather than drowned, or had run away to live in Guam, prior to concluding that he was dead by drowning, UNLESS there was evidence to that effect- personality, situation etc. One might HOPE he was alive, but still presume he was dead.
Legal and technical language is often vastly different to general use and for reason of being technical, most people don't know it, but it's interesting that it says 'presume' is a conclusion based on evidence not yet consolidated.
Honestly, I don't think British people use assume/presume much different from the USA, which IS why the very first thing I said was that there isn't much difference between the two so you shouldn't sweat it!