# for a/the jury to like you



## VicNicSor

-- You're testifying in an aggravated assault case tomorrow. The DA is worried about how you present yourself on the stand. (.........) All you need is for *a *jury to like you. If they like you, they'll trust you.
Brooklyn Nine-Nine, TV series

It's a particular jury -- the one that's going to be tomorrow in the corut of law. Shouldn't it be THE? Thank you.


----------



## Englishmypassion

The speaker is generalizing the situation and means you should present yourself in a way that a jury in general/any jury likes you. He is not focussing on the particular jury.


----------



## VicNicSor

But it's strange in this case that he shifts from a particular event to a general context, isn't it?


----------



## heypresto

Not particularly.


----------



## VicNicSor

heypresto said:


> Not particularly.


So he could've just as well used THE, meaning the particular (tomorrow's) jury, is it right?


----------



## heypresto

Yes, he could have said 'the jury', but as in numerous other cases in numerous other threads, he had a choice . . .


----------



## VicNicSor

Thank you for your replies.


----------



## Truffula

I think the speaker changed to a general context because he thinks that his listener needs this advice in general, not just for this case, but needs to know that this is always the objective.

Needing to make a jury trust him, and the evidence he gives, is a situation the listener finds himself in on a regular basis.


----------



## VicNicSor

Thank you !


----------



## JulianStuart

VicNicSor said:


> -- You're testifying in an aggravated assault case tomorrow. The DA is worried about how you present yourself on the stand. (.........) All you need is for *a *jury to like you. If they like you, they'll trust you.
> Brooklyn Nine-Nine, TV series
> 
> It's a particular jury -- the one that's going to be tomorrow in the corut of law. Shouldn't it be THE? Thank you.


The jury has not been selected yet, so there are many possible juries in the specific case. He needs _one_ that likes him.


----------



## VicNicSor

JulianStuart said:


> He needs _one_ that likes him.


Sorry I don't understand. She (the listener is she) doesn't select the jury. There will already be _one_, by which she needs to be liked.

Do you mean that since the exact members of tomorrow's jury are not known yet, we can think of it as "*a *jury"?


----------



## JulianStuart

VicNicSor said:


> Sorry I don't understand. *She (the listener is she) doesn't select the jury*. There will already be _one_, by which she needs to be liked.
> 
> Do you mean that since the exact members of tomorrow's jury are not known yet, we can think of it as "*a *jury"?


I never implied (s)he did
Absolutely.  There are many possible juries and she needs on that likes her.


----------



## VicNicSor

JulianStuart said:


> I never implied (s)he did
> Absolutely.  There are many possible juries and she needs on that likes her.



To me, the phrase "she needs one that likes her" implies that a jury likes her *before *a court hearing, while actually she needs to make a jury like her *during *a court hearing. Am I wrong?...


----------



## JulianStuart

VicNicSor said:


> To me, the phrase "she needs one that likes her" implies that a jury likes her *before *a court hearing, while actually she needs to make a jury like her *during *a court hearing. Am I wrong?...


Yes.

There are juries who will be favourable to a particular aspect of a person or crime, and those that are not favourable  There is now a whole industry associated with jury selection. OP: All you need is for *a *jury to like you..  The only way the jury can decide whether they like her or not is AT the hearing. Jury consultants can influence the likelihood of this occurring


----------



## VicNicSor

JulianStuart said:


> Yes.
> 
> There are juries who will be favourable to a particular aspect of a person or crime, and those that are not favourable  There is now a whole industry associated with jury selection. OP: All you need is for *a *jury to like you..  The only way the jury can decide whether they like her or not is *AT the hearing*.


1. She needs one *that likes* her.
2. She needs one *to like* her.

You come to a dance floor. 
1. Which girl do you choose to dance with?* You need one that likes you*. (= you still can choose, just choose one of those who like you)

2. Choose one and start dancing with her. *You need her to like you. *(= you can't choose, because you already have.)*
*
That's why I can't understand you -- to me, your phrase matches situation '1', while the OP matches situation '2'.

So tell me please where I'm mistaken.


----------



## JulianStuart

I see no semantic difference.  In the courtroom they like her.


----------



## VicNicSor

Thank you !

Your option is different from the rest here, and I considered it from the beginning too, but since nobody'd mentioned it, I didn't either


JulianStuart said:


> I see no semantic difference.  In the courtroom they like her.


I do see the difference, but, whatever


----------



## JulianStuart

VicNicSor said:


> Thank you !
> 
> Your option is different from the rest here, and I considered it from the beginning too, but since nobody'd mentioned it, I didn't either
> 
> I do see the difference, but, whatever


Are you thinking perhaps that they will ask the jury members _before_ the hearing if they like her - as opposed to meeting her in court and _then_ deciding they like her and that's the difference you see???


----------



## VicNicSor

JulianStuart said:


> Are you thinking perhaps that they will ask the jury members _before_ the hearing if they like her - as opposed to meeting her in court and _then_ deciding they like her and that's the difference you see???


Yes, to me, "she needs one *that likes* her" (as opposed to "she needs one *to like* her") means that she can, *before *the hearing, choose jury members that like her. That's why I'd go with the "*to like*" option...


----------



## JulianStuart

You know she has nothing to do with the selection of the jury members, right?  The only important piece of information in the OP is that she needs a jury that likes her in court.


----------



## VicNicSor

Yes, I know she does not. But: 
you need someone that does something
you need someone to do something

... are different and not interchangeable to me...


----------



## JulianStuart

VicNicSor said:


> Yes, I know she does not. But:
> you need someone that does something
> you need someone to do something
> 
> ... are different and not interchangeable to me...


Before the trial, perhaps.  But at the trial, they are


----------



## VicNicSor

JulianStuart said:


> Before the trial, perhaps.  But at the trial, they are


Ok, one of the jury members is Mr Jones. Now, at the trial, would you say "I need Mr Jones that likes me."? Or would you rather say "I need Mr Jones to like me."?...


----------



## JulianStuart

All you need (in court)  is for *a *jury to like you.
All you need (in court)  is for *a *jury that likes you.

If we meet the need expressed in : "All you need is for *a *jury to like you", then "We have a jury that likes you".
We hope that need is met during the jury selection process.


----------



## VicNicSor

JulianStuart said:


> All you need (in court)  is for *a *jury to like you.
> All you need (in court)  is for *a *jury that likes you.
> 
> If we meet the need expressed in : "All you need is for *a *jury to like you", then "We have a jury that likes you".
> We hope that need is met during the jury selection process.


Oh, I eventually see how "All you need (in court) is *a *jury that likes you." works in the OP Thank you!

But I don't see it in the red sentence. Actually, the speakers are trying to teach her how to dress for and behave in court. So the main point is to make any jury that's going to be there like her. It doesn't seem to me like the hope that the right people are picked out for the jury.


----------



## DaylightDelight

But some people may not like you no matter what you wear and how you behave.
So you should try to act to get liked, and at the same time you have to hope that someone who would like you is selected.


----------



## VicNicSor

But, again, the context. It was said during the process of training her so she will make a good impression on the jury. So the main hope is to make an already selected jury like her.


----------



## DaylightDelight

But did they know who has been selected at the time of this conversation?
If not, they still had to hope that someone who would like her has been selected.


----------



## VicNicSor

DaylightDelight said:


> If not, they still had to hope that someone who would like her has been selected.


But we don't know that; whether they hoped the right jury would be selected or not is *sheer speculation*. The fact is they want the selected jury to like her.

-- All you need is for a jury to like you. If they like you, they'll trust you.
*-- How do I get these morons to like me?*


----------



## heypresto

VicNicSor said:


> How do I get these morons to like me?



Not by calling them morons!


----------



## VicNicSor

Exactly
-- How do I get these morons to like me? Don't call them morons...
-- Good instinct!


----------



## DaylightDelight

Well, it seems to me that those two things are essentially the same thing (or connected at least):
(a) someone who might like her has been selected.
(b) that selected someone actually gets to like her.

So when they hope (b), they are hoping (a) as well, because (a) is necessary for (b) to happen.


----------



## VicNicSor

I disagree. Because *everybody *(not "someone who might like her") may like her, if she's behaving in the right way.


----------



## DaylightDelight

Okay, I think that's where we can't agree.
Because I believe some people would *never* like her no matter how she behaves.
I think it's becoming a matter of personal opinion rather than language, so I'll drop my case.


----------



## VicNicSor

DaylightDelight said:


> Because I believe some people would *never* like her no matter how she behaves.


I just say it again -- it's possible theoretically, but we can never know if they hoped for that in the movie, because it was not stated in any way, it's just our speculation.
We know for sure she needs to impress the existing jury. That's all. The rest is just your guessing


----------



## JulianStuart

VicNicSor said:


> I just say it again -- it's possible theoretically, but we can never know if they hoped for that in the movie, because it was not stated in any way, it's just our speculation.
> We know for sure she needs to impress the existing jury. That's all. The rest is just your guessing


She needs to impress the jury that will be present in the court case tomorrow: we don't know whether that jury has been selected yet or not.

The advice being given is _general_ advice, for any time she has to testify, on the subject of "how to present yourself ... on the stand (in front of) a jury..."


----------



## Glasguensis

In this context it is not possible to have "a jury that likes you" in the sense that they already like you. By definition the jury needs to be composed of people who ideally do not know you at all, and failing that neither like not dislike you. We therefore interpret "a jury that likes you" in exactly the same way as "for a jury to like you", or indeed "for the jury to like you". The context removes any possible nuance.


----------



## VicNicSor

JulianStuart said:


> She needs to impress the jury that will be present in the court case tomorrow: we don't know whether that jury has been selected yet or not.


But tomorrow, at the hearing, it will have already been selected anyway


JulianStuart said:


> The advice being given is _general_ advice, for ant time she has to testify, on the subject of "how to present yourself ... on the stand (in front of) a jury..."


It now differs from #10


Glasguensis said:


> In this context it is not possible to have "a jury that likes you" in the sense that they already like you. By definition the jury needs to be composed of people who ideally do not know you at all, and failing that neither like not dislike you. We therefore interpret "a jury that likes you" in exactly the same way as "for a jury to like you", or indeed "for the jury to like you". The context removes any possible nuance.


But anyway, grammatically these two phrases are very different. I imagined to myself a special context in which "a jury that likes you" would work in the OP.


----------



## Glasguensis

They are different grammatically but they are identical semantically in the context which you originally gave. Clearly they might be different semantically in some other context. That's why we insist on context being provided.


----------



## RedwoodGrove

VicNicSor said:


> But, again, the context. It was said during the process of training her so she will make a good impression on the jury. So the main hope is to make an already selected jury like her.


I have only managed to get the gist of this thread, so forgive me if I'm being redundant. In 99 case out of 100, people will gravitate toward saying "*the* jury" (my home-made statistic). However, for whatever reason, in this case the speaker chose to generalize. This is what a trainer might say if there is no particular courtroom or jury facing her. It does not matter in this instance that the jury has not been selected. In my view that is irrelevant. She will be testifying in front of *the* jury. The ordinary person would say "*the* jury".

Perhaps the lesson here is not to use TV/movie scripts to study English, at least not with as great a specificity as you often exercise, Vic. Hollywood script writers have, in my estimation, a gigantic motivation to make the language somewhat unusual, not only so the audience doesn't get bored but also so that we sort of get lulled into thinking that what we're watching is special and different. Also, it has been my observation that movie and TV producers, directors, technicians, etc. are highly visual people and relate to spoken words as a kind of secondary concern. Those are just there to support the visuals and move the story along. Of course I'm spouting my opinions, but I daresay everyone here is capable of disagreeing.


----------



## VicNicSor

RedwoodGrove said:


> I have only managed to get the gist of this thread, so forgive me if I'm being redundant. In 99 case out of 100, people will gravitate toward saying "*the* jury" (my home-made statistic). However, for whatever reason, in this case the speaker chose to generalize. This is what a trainer might say if there is no particular courtroom or jury facing her. It does not matter in this instance that the jury has not been selected. In my view that is irrelevant. She will be testifying in front of *the* jury. The ordinary person would say "*the* jury".


Oh, I thought in the same way too, that's why I asked that question.


RedwoodGrove said:


> Perhaps the lesson here is not to use TV/movie scripts to study English, at least not with as great a specificity as you often exercise, Vic. Hollywood script writers have, in my estimation, a gigantic motivation to make the language somewhat unusual, not only so the audience doesn't get bored but also so that we sort of get lulled into thinking that what we're watching is special and different. Also, it has been my observation that movie and TV producers, directors, technicians, etc. are highly visual people and relate to spoken words as a kind of secondary concern. Those are just there to support the visuals and move the story along. Of course I'm spouting my opinions, but I daresay everyone here is capable of disagreeing.


Well, maybe the makers of, say, The X-Files are visual, but those who are making Brooklyn 9-9 are different. My opinion. I mean, every second someone speaks. The dialogs take 100% of the episode time.

Thank you all !


----------



## RedwoodGrove

Yeah, I'm kind of speaking in generalities. I haven't seen Brooklyn 9-9. I will say that it may not be a matter of individual predilections in Hollywood so much as their experience of seeing what sells and what the audience responds to. There are a lot of really smart people in the movie/TV industry, which becomes obvious when you hear them speaking even in an unscripted situation. But I have walked out of movie theaters or turned off a TV show just because I couldn't stand the dialogue.


----------



## JulianStuart

RedwoodGrove said:


> I have only managed to get the gist of this thread, so forgive me if I'm being redundant. In 99 case out of 100, people will gravitate toward saying "*the* jury" (my home-made statistic). However, for whatever reason, in this case the speaker chose to generalize. This is what a trainer might say if there is no particular courtroom or jury facing her. It does not matter in this instance that the jury has not been selected. In my view that is irrelevant. She will be testifying in front of *the* jury. The ordinary person would say "*the* jury".
> 
> Perhaps the lesson here is not to use TV/movie scripts to study English, at least not with as great a specificity as you often exercise, Vic. Hollywood script writers have, in my estimation, a gigantic motivation to make the language somewhat unusual, not only so the audience doesn't get bored but also so that we sort of get lulled into thinking that what we're watching is special and different. Also, it has been my observation that movie and TV producers, directors, technicians, etc. are highly visual people and relate to spoken words as a kind of secondary concern. Those are just there to support the visuals and move the story along. Of course I'm spouting my opinions, but I daresay everyone here is capable of disagreeing.


Thanks for speaking for the other 99 of us
I have no problem with each presenting their own opinion, but it seems too common these days (thankfully this forum is _not_ about politics where the phenomenon abounds) for individuals to claim to represent "the vast majority". Human nature I suppose.  

I saw the advice as general advice, based in the use of "a jury". I would have seen it as specific advice if it had been "the jury". If it had been intended as specific advice I would have expected the specific "about how you _will* _present yourself ..." in the case "tomorrow". I won't speak for any majority, though

(* or even "_are going to_ present ... " but that's a separate topic)


----------



## RedwoodGrove

JulianStuart said:


> I saw the advice as general advice, based in the use of "a jury". I would have seen it as specific advice if it had been "the jury". If it had been intended as specific advice I would have expected the specific "about how you _will* _present yourself ..." in the case "tomorrow". I won't speak for any majority, though


Well, I actually agree with you on that. It isn't clear why the speaker might have chosen to do that, though.


----------



## JulianStuart

Because the person being given the advice is likely to have to testify at more than just this one case in the future and the advice holds for all of them? We don't have much background/context to go on, so I would not have found either version to be remarkable - the advice might have been either for that case or for cases in general: author's choice for the character's words and implied meaning


----------



## Truffula

Truffula said:


> I think the speaker changed to a general context because he thinks that his listener needs this advice in general, not just for this case, but needs to know that this is always the objective.
> 
> Needing to make a jury trust him, and the evidence he gives, is a situation the listener finds himself in on a regular basis.



Maybe I should correct that last sentence to "Needing to make a jury trust her, and the evidence she gives, is a situation the listener may find herself in again."

But it doesn't even require that, I don't think.  The speaker can regard it as general advice and change to "a" jury.  I don't think the whole analysis of whether the jury was chosen already or not is even relevant.  It's the speaker wanting this to sound like a general principle being imparted to the listener - that's what drives the choice of article.


----------



## VicNicSor

Thank you!


----------



## RedwoodGrove

Truffula said:


> It's the speaker wanting this to sound like a general principle being imparted to the listener - that's what drives the choice of article.


----------



## JulianStuart

(Post # 2 redux)


----------

