# "Beat...his wife" ?



## Ana Raquel

Hello.

Have you noticed the example given here in this dictionary wordreference explaining the word "beat"?

It says: *1* _(persona)_ pegar, golpear: *he beats his wife,* pega a su mujer

I wonder how that example was chosen. Why "beat his wife" precisely? I am not saying it should say "beat her husband"  , but could'n it be "beat a person" , or "beat his cousin" ... or nothing? ...

Perhaps you find this unimportant, but I seize the opportunity to draw anyone's attention against gender issues and the like.

To make this topic fit the Cultural Forum, we could discuss if that example reflects society preconceived ideas, or if any cultural group, country or religion would defend the example as a common situation that would justify the example-choice. Notice that it is presented as the *first* example.

Thank you!


----------



## jonquiliser

Thank you for bringing this up. I'd say that yes, examples (in general, not only this one) do reflect ideas about what is taken to be normal or what is expected. Perhaps it is sometimes the result of conscious decision (this use is anticipated and something a learner is likely to come across), sometimes less so. But in either of the cases, the examples may create an idea of this-or-that being normal, not something to be surprised about. Another example (a classic!) could be "hysteria", for which the WR dictionary offers the following example: *her hysteria was mounting*. Clearly there are ideas of what words are appropriate in which context, which are not straightforwardly results of 'the requirements of the language', but reflections of 'how people see the world' (anyway, this is probably true for most of language use, although in a more subtle way).


----------



## Trisia

Well, it is a common occurence, isn't it? At least, this happens a lot more than the other way around (I've heard Russian wives beat their husbands, maybe we could get Etcetera's opinion on that).

I suppose it's quite natural that the examples should fit real life. I'm not saying I agree with the example itself, but I can't see a good alternative: He/She beat his/her children? She beat her spouse? He beat his neighbour?

I'm wondering whether or not this really reflects the opinion of the majority of Romanians (because it's the cultural forum), but I think that if you asked them to provide you with an example, most would give the one you mentioned. It's not as much a gender issue as it is something we all know happens. A lot.


----------



## Ana Raquel

Thanks Jonquiliser,

do you think removing those kind of examples could help to erase or minimize the preconceived ideas behind them?  I mean, imagine a boy looking the word up, he could take it as normal perhaps, and something will be kept  in his mind. 

I'd propose the owners of the dictionary to revise this and think os the possibility of choosing another examples.


----------



## Ana Raquel

Hi Trisia, thanks.



Trisia said:


> I suppose it's quite natural that the examples should fit real life. I'm not saying I agree with the example itself, but I can't see a good alternative: He/She beat his/her children? She beat her spouse? He beat his neighbour?
> .


 
there is no need of involving anyone, check merriam-webster, it doesn't mention especifically anybody: *1* *:* to strike repeatedly: *a* *:* to hit repeatedly so as to inflict pain ...


----------



## Etcetera

Trisia said:


> Well, it is a common occurence, isn't it? At least, this happens a lot more than the other way around (I've heard Russian wives beat their husbands, maybe we could get Etcetera's opinion on that).


I've heard the same thing about Russian wives. Their usual weapon, according to numerous stories and anecdotes, are frying pans and flying plates. 
But family violence is, sadly, a common thing here. You can hear regularly about a woman who was beat by her husband. What really surprise me (and not only me) is that many women don't see it as a reason for divorce. They continue to live with this... man, for want of a better word!
There's even a saying in Russian: If he beats me, he loves me. I've never heard anything stupider!


----------



## Fernando

I think it is useful a dictionary includes a sentence in wich the defined word appears.

With "beat", you could say:

- He beats his child. Promoting violence against children.
- He beats the foreigner. Promoting xenophobia.
- He beats his cousin. Promoting violence inside the family.
- He beats the dogs. Promoting violence against animals.
- He beats one person. Apart from promoting generic violence, why is an example? I could say that "beat" means the same as "love, hate, bite, rob, spit, threaten... and any other transitive English word.

He beats his wife express perfectly which the meaning of "beat" (to hit repeatedly). "Beat" has a negative meaning, so which is your alternative?


----------



## jonquiliser

Ana-Raquel, I'm not sure I'd say something will change because dictionaries change. But I am certain dictionaries will change once things change. To that end, I think it is important to point out how "normalised" things get, in different ways, how we are blind to the facts that surround us. 

So I guess at the same time I'm responding to Fernando: is it really that it 'promotes' violence? In a way, I'd say no. It just ('just') normalises it so as to sink deeper into our minds. Indirectly, that may contribute to its perpetuation. But in itself, it's a _reflection_ rather than _promoting_. Pointing these instances out, however, I believe to be of great importance, because it calls our attention to the things we, perhaps, know but are complacent about, or choose not to reflect on. It's not a 'simple fact' that beating is bad; what context we put it in will conjure up differing pictures. It may pay off to have a look at those pictures and what they can tell us. 

Etcetera: it really is a horrible saying . But on the topic of what women do or don't do; I don't think it's as easy as get a divorce. Women in violent relations are typically subjected not only to physical terror, but also psychological terror which can really break a person down...


----------



## Kajjo

I would just say that certain words are used in certain contexts. For the German language we have a university service that gives typical collocations (i.e. words occuring before or after a keyword) and this is based on millions of text lines found in typical magazines, journals and newspapers.

If the word _hysteria _would be more commonly found with _her_ than _him_ it would be -- in my opinion -- incorrect to present it in wrongly assumed "politically-correct" way. Facts are facts and shouldn't be twisted. Language learners can much more easily realise what an English-only description of a word is supposed to mean in their native language, if the examples are real-life and not artificially made politically correct. Further, linguistics and science should not obey to the _Zeitgeist_ and change dictionary entries for political reasons, but only for linguistic ones, I believe.

Kajjo


----------



## Ana Raquel

Replying to Fernando.
Please read my post above answering Trisia's post. There is no need to mention anyone. It can be explained perfectly as  Merrian Webster dictionary does.






Fernando said:


> I think it is useful a dictionary includes a sentence in wich the defined word appears.
> 
> With "beat", you could say:
> 
> - He beats his child. Promoting violence against children.
> - He beats the foreigner. Promoting xenophobia.
> - He beats his cousin. Promoting violence inside the family.
> - He beats the dogs. Promoting violence against animals.
> - He beats one person. Apart from promoting generic violence, why is an example? I could say that "beat" means the same as "love, hate, bite, rob, spit, threaten... and any other transitive English word.
> 
> He beats his wife express perfectly which the meaning of "beat" (to hit repeatedly). "Beat" has a negative meaning, so which is your alternative?


----------



## jonquiliser

> Facts are facts and shouldn't be twisted.


 
Well, what constitutes a fact isn't at all that clear...  It's no secret that language is used to certain ends - it's not that women have been more hysterical, it's that facts have been twisted (you could say 'language has been abused'). So should a dictionary pick up that twisted fact?


----------



## Fernando

I had noticed it, Ana Raquel. The point is that M-W does not include examples, which I think is a useful way to guide the reader.

Any examples are a sample of their GENERAL use. Vg. if I include "White", I would say "The white man from Iceland broke the ice". Of course there is some racism explicit (why are they not whites in Congo or blacks in Iceland?) but the reader will not get confused with other politically correct example.

I give you one point: No unnecessary racist examples should be given.


----------



## Kajjo

jonquiliser said:


> it's that facts have been twisted (you could say 'language has been abused'). So should a dictionary pick up that twisted fact?


What I meant with "fact" was not the beating or being hysterical, but the chance to find certain words in certain collocations or idioms -- so as to recognise the saying and be able to translate it from an English-only explanation or definition into one's native language.

By the way, of course there are characteristics that are typical woman-like or man-like, of course not 100%-to-0%, but with varying abundances significantly off 50-50.

Kajjo


----------



## jonquiliser

Well, my point was simply that what is taken as a fact (linguistic or otherwise) is not simple. It's not as simple as picking up linguistic structures - certainly, not all people speak the same way, or use those stereotypes, yet differing uses aren't necessarily picked up in dictionaries. Why? Simple linguistic facts? Sorry, I'd say _quatsch_!

By the way, of course there aren't characteristics that are typical woman-like or man-like.


----------



## Etcetera

jonquiliser said:


> Etcetera: it really is a horrible saying . But on the topic of what women do or don't do; I don't think it's as easy as get a divorce. Women in violent relations are typically subjected not only to physical terror, but also psychological terror which can really break a person down...


It's pretty hard to get a divorce in Russia. 
But the sadliest thing is that quite a number of women who are regularly beaten by their husbands simply don't want to get a divorce. If they have children, they'd better stay with this man than risk raising the child on their own. 
I've also read a lot of articles about husbands who beat their wives only when  drunken, In such cases, some women tend actually to pity their husbands... 
It's something I really can't understand about my compatriots.


----------



## fenixpollo

Fernando said:


> "Beat" has a negative meaning, so which is your alternative?


 He beat the rug with a stick.
She beat her fist on the table.
He beat the steak with the meat tenderizer.

There are many things that can be beaten, besides people.


----------



## DearPrudence

I would just like to say that "battre sa femme" in French is quite a set collocation, hence the existence of centres for "femmes battues"
But when "applied" to someone else, in another situations, it's rather "frapper" than "battre". 
I think it's rather a reflection of reality (however sad it is) than anything else. Reading that in the dictionary doesn't make me think it's normal or should be accepted ...

edit: let's just note that of course, for your second sentence, fenix, we wouldn't use "battre" ...


----------



## french4beth

I think that Fenixpollo's suggestions would be a good alternative; in AE, there's also "to beat eggs" or the biblical "to beat one's chest".

Ana Raquel, thanks for bringing this up - this is a good point!


----------



## Kajjo

french4beth said:


> I think that Fenixpollo's suggestions would be a good alternative


I agree, even if I see no point in arguing against the "beat his wife" idiom. It's linguistic and learning languages, not making political statements.



> there's also "to beat eggs" or the biblical "to beat one's chest".


The first one is not very good, because in many other languages "beating eggs" might not use the same word as "beating his wife". We need an idiom that is so clear that almost every language will give the correct term that would also be used for wifes and dogs and gang brutality! The second, biblical quote I would not have understood. I think biblical quotes are not very good examples for contemporary English.

We easily see: Good examples are difficult to find. WRR dictionary succeeded in giving an unambigious example, even if not considered political correct by some people.

Kajjo


----------



## fenixpollo

french4beth said:


> I think that Fenixpollo's suggestions would be a good alternative; in AE, there's also "to beat eggs" or the biblical "to beat one's chest".


 I agree with Kajjo that "beat eggs" means "to mix" and has a different meaning than "beat" in the sense of "hit with force".


----------



## Fernando

fenixpollo said:


> He beat the rug with a stick.
> She beat her fist on the table.
> He beat the steak with the meat tenderizer.
> 
> There are many things that can be beaten, besides people.



Agreed. As a matter of fact, I did not know the 1st and 3rd examples. I would have used "hit" in the first case and I do not know what I should use in the 3rd one. My mistake.

Anyway, I still think is a waste of time to look for offences. I would not mind the following examples, which denigrates the groups I am included in:

Attack - The pirate ship attacked the Spanish galeon.
Murder - The conquistador from Extremadura murdered the Indian priest.
Fanatic - The Spanish Inquisition was a fanatic institution.
English - Gibraltar is an English city.
Dirty - People from the South is dirty and lazy.

and 

Man - The man beat his wife.


----------



## Ana Raquel

"Thugs beat him up when he walked down the street late at night"

Acceptable example found on the net.


(http://www.google.es/search?q=define:beat&hl=es&rls=HPEB,HPEB:2007-05,HPEB:es&oi=definel&defl=en)


----------



## Kajjo

Ana Raquel said:


> "Thugs beat him up when he walked down the street late at night"Acceptable example found on the net.


Maybe I am a bit slow tonight, but why do you regard one crime (thugs beat up a man) more acceptable than another crime (man beats wife). I really do not see the point. Is it more politically correct to beat up a man than a woman?

Kajjo


----------



## min300

Ana Raquel said:


> do you think removing those kind of examples could help to erase or minimize the preconceived ideas behind them?  I mean, imagine a boy looking the word up, he could take it as normal perhaps, and something will be kept  in his mind.
> 
> I'd propose the owners of the dictionary to revise this and think os the possibility of choosing another examples.



Hi Anna,

Maybe it would have been better,if in this example it had been mentioned that the man had a *psychological problem*, or was *alcoholic*. Then everybody would think that this ' beating his wife' is not what a normal person does.

By the way, I think this could remind us that there are still many women in our world that our suffering from this kind of abuses, and they even think it is normal. I mean ,they are not aware of their rights.  It is a sad story.


----------



## luis masci

Anyway I think the “spirit” of the initial post was to get answers in the sense if beating women is seen as a natural and common fact or not, rather to get an analysis about the correct use of the word “beat”. 
I think it still is common here although it was, in my opinion, worst in the past. 
I remember being a child, my next door neighbor often came back drunk and we knew what that meant. From his wife to his dog would be beaten(including children of course). Something similar happened with another nearby neighbor and so on. And I am not speaking about a very poor neighborhood. It was a middle class one.


----------



## cuchuflete

For consideration:

Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary offers, among many other meanings of 'beat', these sample sentences-


> HIT
> 6 to hit sb/sth many times, usually very hard: [v + adv. / prep.] Somebody was beating at the door. * Hailstones beat against the window. * [vn, often + adv. / prep.] Someone was beating a drum. * She was beating dust out of the carpet (= removing dust from the carpet by beating it). * An elderly man was found beaten to death. * At that time children were regularly beaten for quite minor offences (= a punishment). * The prisoners were beaten into submission (= they were beaten until they did what was wanted). * [vn-adj] They beat him unconscious (= hit him until he became unconscious).



Here it is an elderly man who is beaten to death, children beaten for little or no good cause, and prisoners beaten into submission.  An anonymous 'he' is beaten unconscious.  No female beatings.

Is this any worse or any better, as a set of clear illustrations of one meaning of the word beat?


----------



## Forero

Fernando said:


> I think it is useful a dictionary includes a sentence in wich the defined word appears.
> 
> With "beat", you could say:
> 
> - He beats his child. Promoting violence against children.
> - He beats the foreigner. Promoting xenophobia.
> - He beats his cousin. Promoting violence inside the family.
> - He beats the dogs. Promoting violence against animals.
> - He beats one person. Apart from promoting generic violence, why is an example? I could say that "beat" means the same as "love, hate, bite, rob, spit, threaten... and any other transitive English word.
> 
> He beats his wife express perfectly which the meaning of "beat" (to hit repeatedly). "Beat" has a negative meaning, so which is your alternative?



He beats his chest.  Promoting? grief? simian behavior?

How about:
She beats her drum while marching across the field - paradiddles and all.


----------



## Forero

Is "beat up" the same as "beat"?

Speaking of dictionaries, I think one of the first in English (Samuel Johnson's) had as a "definition" of "corn": "a grain that in England is fed to cattle and in Scotland supports the populace".


----------



## Ana Raquel

Hi min300



min300 said:


> Hi Anna,
> Maybe it would have been better,if in this example it had been mentioned that the man had a *psychological problem*, or was *alcoholic*. Then everybody would think that this ' beating his wife' is not what a normal person does..


 
Exactly. For that reason I find the example with 'Thugs' acceptable.


----------



## jonquiliser

min300 said:


> Hi Anna,
> 
> Maybe it would have been better,if in this example it had been mentioned that the man had a *psychological problem*, or was *alcoholic*. Then everybody would think that this ' beating his wife' is not what a normal person does.


 
Unfortunately, I can't agree with this. 'Normal people' do hit. That is, what is seen as normal masculinity (a normal man) can hit and it's not seen as strange.

Someone mentioned that examples like "he beat his wife" might even highlight the fact that this occur. I believe this is true, it is one possible reaction to the example - there's not only one possible reaction here.

In cases such as "her hysteria was mounting" I'm not so sure anymore. I think this is a typical case of blindness to what it means to use some words, and I don't think it's straightforwardly linguistic considerations that lead to these examples. It doesn't reflect linguistic use as much as it reflect socio-political circumstances, and I think dictionaries should be more precise and less sided than this.

However it may be, I think these examples serve as examples also in other contexts, namely, to point out what ideas have gone into the formulation of examples. And these discussions should serve us all to think about our own conceptions.


----------



## min300

jonquiliser said:


> Unfortunately, I can't agree with this. 'Normal people' do hit. That is, what is seen as normal masculinity (a normal man) can hit and it's not seen as strange.
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I think a man hitting his wife,
> 
> 1. has learned to do so from his own childhood. So it is a psychological problem.
> 
> 2. He has learned to do so, because it was advertised in his culture or society.
> 
> 3. He is alcoholic or addicted to some kind of drugs, as a result he doesn't have a proper control on his behavior.
> 
> 4. He doesn't learn how to control his anger (I think this is also related to psychology).
> 
> I have seen different men beating their wife or girlfriends. Believe me these men are not happy and healthy people. I knew a woman who couldn't hear properly after being hit by his addicted husband. Is this a normal masculinely?
> This is also true about beating children or men, but I have never seen a man taken to a hospital because his wife has beaten him.
> 
> But I also think this example reminds us of this fact.


----------



## cuchuflete

Here is the latest from the _Socio-linguistic society for distortion of the language as we know it to overcome the distortions of our respective cultures_:  The victim of societal mis-perceptions of the worth of each and every individual, without regard to sex, ethnicity, age or other distinguishing features, beat the other victim of societal defects to a bloody pulp, while the lexicographer stood idly by.


----------



## jonquiliser

min300 said:


> I think a man hitting his wife,
> 
> 1. has learned to do so from his own childhood. So it is a psychological problem.
> 
> 2. He has learned to do so, because it was advertised in his culture or society.
> 
> 3. He is alcoholic or addicted to some kind of drugs, as a result he doesn't have a proper control on his behavior.
> 
> 4. He doesn't learn how to control his anger (I think this is also related to psychology).
> 
> I have seen different men beating their wife or girlfriends. Believe me these men are not happy and healthy people.


 
Here we disagree completely. But going in to that would be unambiguously off-topic, so I'll pass.

Regards.


----------



## fenixpollo

jonquiliser said:


> Unfortunately, I can't agree with this. 'Normal people' do hit. That is, what is seen as normal masculinity (a normal man) can hit and it's not seen as strange.


 You use the word "hit", but I assume that you're still talking about the word "beat". You also use the phrase "normal people".  You're opening yourself up for an argument about what is normal, and you're gong off topic into the argument about whether people beating each other is normal, acceptable and right. Sounds like a good topic for another thread. 

The discussion here is really about two different criteria for judging the acceptability of a dictionary example. 

On the one hand, we could ask, *Does this example sentence reflect what occurs in everyday life, in a way that the majority of people would understand?*  This question does not judge the action, in the way that science does not judge but merely observes. There is no consideration of what is "normal" or "acceptable", but simply what "is". According to this criteria, a sentence about a man beating his wife would be OK because it is a frequent ocurrence in everyday life.

On the other hand, we could take that criteria a step further, and ask,* Does this example sentence reflect what should occur in everyday life,* * in a way that the majority of people would understand?* This question judges the action, to determine if it's "normal", "desirable" or "acceptable" behavior. It considers the world that we would like to live in, and seeks to not perpetuate negative, destructive and unhealthy behaviors by enshrining them in a dictionary.  According to this criteria, a sentence about a man beating his wife would not be OK because it should not be treated as a normal, acceptable behavior, but rather a deviant one.

However, this discussion isn't about the question "is it normal and acceptable for a man to beat his wife"?  This discussion is about the question, *Which criterion should be used for selecting dictionary examples?*


----------



## jonquiliser

Fenixpollo, I didn't want to get into the discussion of whether it is seen as normal or not. I was replying to a suggestion by min300 that it should be included in the example that 'the man has psychological problems', merely to point out that to do so wouldn't improve the matter as it is not so unambiguously clear that that is the case (i.e., that psychological problems are what cause the problem). In a message just a little further down I said the discussion of normality-or-not was off-topic here and that I wouldn't enter into it. But I do see it as on-topic and relevant to point out why I found the suggestion min300 made, inadequate.

Sorry if I seemed condescending - didn't mean to cause offence to either of you.


----------



## Ana Raquel

cuchuflete said:


> For consideration:
> _* An elderly man was found beaten to death. * At that time children were regularly beaten for quite minor offences (= a punishment). * The prisoners were beaten into submission (= they were beaten until they did what was wanted). * [vn-adj] They beat him unconscious (= hit him until he became unconscious)._
> 
> *Is this any worse or any better, as a set of clear illustrations of one meaning of the word beat?*


 
Well, they are not as blatant as the bare "he beats his wife" (like that, present tense, as it would be "he combs his hair" or he drinks coffee" as something usual or normal)


----------



## Fernando

Forero said:


> He beats his chest.  Promoting? grief? simian behavior?
> 
> How about:
> She beats her drum while marching across the field - paradiddles and all.



If you feel that beating one's wife is not normal, I do not know how normal is "beating one's chest".

About beating the drum, the meaning is totally different (at least in Spanish we use different words).

Anyhow, I have admitted before that you COULD think of different, politically correct examples, but I fail to see what the use is. The main purpose of a dictionary is conveying information. 

If I am not wrong (note "if", since I am not a native) 80% of the use of "beat" involves other person. So, any example would be unpleasant.


----------



## notdominique

Hello !

Someone used the word "quatsch" in this thread. I can't find it in any dictionary. What does it mean ?

In French, we have a lot of colloquial expressions including "battre". Unless you know them, they do not seem to make any sense. I think it's fun too, it's the richness of a language, though _using_ these expressions may be tricky if you are not a native-speaker.

For instance : 
battre sa flemme (not femme !) means to be lazy
battre froid : not to be friendly, because you feel offended
battre la campagne, battre la breloque : to be crazy
battre de l'aile : to be no longer successful (a company)
battre les buissons : lo look for something
etc. etc.

I am aware this contribution may be irrelevant in this thread, which I found most interesting.


----------



## cuchuflete

Ana Raquel said:


> Originalmente publicado por *cuchuflete*
> 
> 
> For consideration:
> _* An elderly man was found beaten to death. * At that time children were regularly beaten for quite minor offences (= a punishment). * The prisoners were beaten into submission (= they were beaten until they did what was wanted). * [vn-adj] They beat him unconscious (= hit him until he became unconscious)._
> 
> *Is this any worse or any better, as a set of clear illustrations of one meaning of the word beat?*
> 
> 
> 
> Well, they are not as blatant as the bare "he beats his wife" (like that, present tense, as it would be "he combs his hair" or he drinks coffee" as something usual or normal)
Click to expand...


Not as blatant?  Is there something less than crystal clear about "They beat him unconscious"?
If it were restated as "They beat her unconscious" would it be any better or any worse?

Both that sentence and "He beats his wife" clearly illustrate use of the verb beat, meaning to hit somebody.  In writing illustrative sample sentences for a dictionary, especially a bi-lingual dictionary, 'blatant' is good.  The objective of a dictionary is to present and illustrate the meaning of words.

We have one dictionary sample sentence that illustrates the use of beat in which the object of the beating is female, and another dictionary with a number of samples in which two objects of beatings are male, and two cases in which the sex of the beaten persons is unstated.  Why is
any one of these "better" than another?  

Is any one of them unclear, or a poor illustration of the meaning of the verb?


----------



## Ana Raquel

cuchuflete said:


> Not as blatant? Is there something less than crystal clear about "They beat him unconscious"?
> If it were restated as "They beat her unconscious" would it be any better or any worse?
> 
> Both that sentence and "He beats his wife" clearly illustrate use of the verb beat, meaning to hit somebody. In writing illustrative sample sentences for a dictionary, especially a bi-lingual dictionary, 'blatant' is good. The objective of a dictionary is to present and illustrate the meaning of words.
> 
> We have one dictionary sample sentence that illustrates the use of beat in which the object of the beating is female, and another dictionary with a number of samples in which two objects of beatings are male, and two cases in which the sex of the beaten persons is unstated. Why is
> any one of these "better" than another?
> 
> Is any one of them unclear, or a poor illustration of the meaning of the verb?


 
All of them, Oxford and Wordreference, are clear and illustrate the meaning of the verb properly, but this is not what I am discussing. 

I am not discussing either if it is better or worse that the victim is male or female, please...!

Yes, the objective of a dictionary is to present and illustrate the meaning of words. And the use of the language and vocabulary taints the life situations, e. g. it is not correct to say on the Health System "a disabled" but "a person with a disability" or you can't say in the Mental Health System "a schizofrenic" but "a person with schizofrenia" and in the same spirit perhaps dictionaries could (I personally think should) look for more elaborated, or at least not so simply examples, more when it is used the present tense that expresses, as I have learned, usual situations.

The Oxford ones are more elaborated, using different tenses the first one _the elderly_ is like a headline, something presented as not usual or normal; the second one, _the children_, makes reference to the past, implying is not usual or normal; the third one, _the war_, points the war situation, something not usual or normal, and the last one, the unconcious is presented totally anonymous, not fosusing on somebody especifically like _the wife _does.


----------



## ireney

Just so I'm clear with what we are really discussing here, are we talking about the possibility that:

a)  the statement "he beat his wife" is in a way promoting or perpetuating a most horrible act. 

If that is the case then the answer is no, no judgment is passed by this sentence and doing so is in fact wrong for a dictionary if you ask me.
Any example for this meaning of "beat" would actually portray an act we all (I hope) cannot condone. It would be a poor example indeed if it was of an act we can live with.

b) a past tense example would be better.

 Not with this particular example. And since there is but one example for this particular meaning (and yes, of course it's the first example, that's the most common meaning of "to beat" ) the use of a past tense could be confusing for someone learning the language (especially since we're talking about an irregular verb). Grammar is one thing and vocabulary another.

c) 





> if that example reflects society preconceived ideas, or if any cultural group, country or religion would defend the example as a common situation that would justify the example-choice. Notice that it is presented as the first example.



Beating one's wife was common and accepted in Greece only two generations past. In my parent's generation it was neither but wasn't frowned upon as much as it deserves in rural areas. In my generation it's simply unthikable. Obviously there are still wife beaters and that's why mothers all over Greece teach their daughters that if they are unlucky enough to love or even marry such a bully they have to act in a dynamic way (on a personal note, my mother  has instilled to me a rather "extreme" and almost "pavlovian" reaction to the _suggestion_ of such violence with my father agreeing and adding an extra twist. I am by no means an exception  )

However I personally find it a valid example and no alarm bells ring. You see it's one of the very few examples that fit the meaning of both βαράω and χτυπάω, two Greek verbs that can be used with the same meaning and most of the others would probably call for further clarification (even the example with the old man).
As I see it (and I realise it's a personal opinion but I offer it as a person fluent in Greek and almost fluent in English) it's a good example of the use of the verb.

1. My Greek dictionary gives as an example for βαράω a sentence saying (my translation) "they were all beating him together with their fists and with kicks" . It may be politically correct (after all it's a "him" that gets beaten brutally) but oh what a violent example! Hardly less reprehensible an act! Good example though. Even if one does not condone physical violence at all I'm sure you get the meaning. Even if you find the act appauling you can now say that you know the main meaning of "βαράω" in Greek.


----------

