English Take The Law Into Your Hands

Home | Classroom | Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Words | Phrases | Countries | Languages

Phrasebase Archive

khanhha Tuesday 27th of December 2005 10:38:27 AM
take the law into your hands - Please help me explain "she took the law into her own hands" in the sentence:

"One day, after years of violent abuse from her husband, she took the law into her own hands."

Thanks a lot.

SilentRick015 Tuesday 27th of December 2005 02:00:25 PM
- Ok... this is an expression commonly used in English.

"She took the law into her own hands" basically means that she did what the authorities would have done had she waited for them to step in. In this case, the woman probably either killed or injured her husband severely, judging by the context clues.

However, this expression is usually used to express a last resort. In the woman's case, she probably sought the authorities' help, but they refused her wishes. The phrase also gives the impression that the person is suffering and needs to do whatever to be relieved.

I hope this helps. :D

khanhha Tuesday 27th of December 2005 02:53:03 PM
- Dear Silent,
Your help is valuable to me. I understood as soon as I read all your explanation.Thank you very much. However, I don't understand the grammatical structure in your sentence:
"......basically means that she did what the authorities would have done had she waited for them to step in."

When "had" appears in the sentence made me confused. Please explain. Thanks.

SilentRick015 Tuesday 27th of December 2005 11:09:44 PM
- Ooops... my apologies.

It is common (where I live) that people will place the word "had" to replace "if"... I will repeat the sentence with "if"...

"...basically means that she did what the authorities would have done IF she WOULD HAVE waited for them to step in."

Sometimes I type like I talk, and it is a bad habit... haha

Daan Tuesday 27th of December 2005 11:40:11 PM
- Actually, as far as I know the word "had" there indicates that the following sentence does not describe something that happened in real life. For example:

Had I called him, he would have come.
(but I did not call him)

Had the authorities stepped in, she would not have killed him.
(but they did not step in)

Had she waited for them, she would not have killed him.
(but she did not wait)
One could substitute this with "If she would have waited for them, she would not have killed them", but many authorative scholars/editors prefer using "had".

Which you use does not really matter a lot. A lot of native speakers just use the if-construction, but some newspapers (such as [i]The Economist[/i]) would use the had-construction.

joziboy Wednesday 28th of December 2005 12:22:48 AM
- Yeah, SilentRick, no need to apologise, using 'had' in that context is perfect English. It sounds better than 'if' - and I usually trust what sounds good to me coz my mom was an English teacher and is very anal about her grammar :)

Daan Wednesday 28th of December 2005 02:14:04 AM
- I still think it sounds weird to say somebody is anal about something :D

khanhha Wednesday 28th of December 2005 07:19:10 AM
- Dear Silent,
yes, you don't need to apologize because as soon as I posted my reply, I remembered this structure.Thank you and all of those whose help me understand more my problem.
Thanks a lot.

teknogeek Wednesday 28th of December 2005 07:46:41 AM
- I believe that if we really want to get "anal" about the grammatical terms, using "had" in the sentence makes the sentence passive conditional. Simply using "if" makes the sentence conditional, but does not use the passive voice.

Either would be correct.

Phrasebase Archive
	khanhha	Tuesday 27th of December 2005 10:38:27 AM
	take the law into your hands - Please help me explain "she took the law into her own hands" in the sentence: "One day, after years of violent abuse from her husband, she took the law into her own hands." Thanks a lot.
	SilentRick015	Tuesday 27th of December 2005 02:00:25 PM
	- Ok... this is an expression commonly used in English. "She took the law into her own hands" basically means that she did what the authorities would have done had she waited for them to step in. In this case, the woman probably either killed or injured her husband severely, judging by the context clues. However, this expression is usually used to express a last resort. In the woman's case, she probably sought the authorities' help, but they refused her wishes. The phrase also gives the impression that the person is suffering and needs to do whatever to be relieved. I hope this helps. :D
	khanhha	Tuesday 27th of December 2005 02:53:03 PM
	- Dear Silent, Your help is valuable to me. I understood as soon as I read all your explanation.Thank you very much. However, I don't understand the grammatical structure in your sentence: "......basically means that she did what the authorities would have done had she waited for them to step in." When "had" appears in the sentence made me confused. Please explain. Thanks.
	SilentRick015	Tuesday 27th of December 2005 11:09:44 PM
	- Ooops... my apologies. It is common (where I live) that people will place the word "had" to replace "if"... I will repeat the sentence with "if"... "...basically means that she did what the authorities would have done IF she WOULD HAVE waited for them to step in." Sometimes I type like I talk, and it is a bad habit... haha
	Daan	Tuesday 27th of December 2005 11:40:11 PM
	- Actually, as far as I know the word "had" there indicates that the following sentence does not describe something that happened in real life. For example: Had I called him, he would have come. (but I did not call him) Had the authorities stepped in, she would not have killed him. (but they did not step in) Had she waited for them, she would not have killed him. (but she did not wait) One could substitute this with "If she would have waited for them, she would not have killed them", but many authorative scholars/editors prefer using "had". Which you use does not really matter a lot. A lot of native speakers just use the if-construction, but some newspapers (such as [i]The Economist[/i]) would use the had-construction.
	joziboy	Wednesday 28th of December 2005 12:22:48 AM
	- Yeah, SilentRick, no need to apologise, using 'had' in that context is perfect English. It sounds better than 'if' - and I usually trust what sounds good to me coz my mom was an English teacher and is very anal about her grammar :)
	Daan	Wednesday 28th of December 2005 02:14:04 AM
	- I still think it sounds weird to say somebody is anal about something :D
	khanhha	Wednesday 28th of December 2005 07:19:10 AM
	- Dear Silent, yes, you don't need to apologize because as soon as I posted my reply, I remembered this structure.Thank you and all of those whose help me understand more my problem. Thanks a lot.
	teknogeek	Wednesday 28th of December 2005 07:46:41 AM
	- I believe that if we really want to get "anal" about the grammatical terms, using "had" in the sentence makes the sentence passive conditional. Simply using "if" makes the sentence conditional, but does not use the passive voice. Either would be correct.