On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 15:04:20 -0000, "Mike Lyle"
wrote:

This discussion will only have meaning if we can contextualize it. In
the same way, a court of law would need to know the context.

Is the OP being accused of, or contemplating, stealing a plant, for
example? And is he hoping to rely on the defence that he didn't take
a plant, because the plant material in question had no roots at the
time?

At a guess, I'd say the Chambers' Dictionary entry takes the form it
does in order to cover such eventualities; Collins has much the same
definition. This surmise is because a cutting certainly isn't a plant
in most people's everyday speech; and the broader definition isn't
quite in line with the first edition of the OED.

I think you're guilty, mate!

Don't forget the legal maxim that the law does not concern itself with
trivialities. In almost all cases, one cutting is a triviality.

An amusing story, but first some background: Canada is a highly
bureaucratic country, and the rules are made in Ottawa, thousands of
miles to the east, a city where they understandeth not the compulsions
that drive the gardeners of the west coast. It's hard to bring in
plants; it's not a question of whether the plant is carrying disease
or pests, or not, but whether you do or don't have an expensive piece
of paper saying it doesn't.

As a result, gardeners in BC are generally fairly seasoned smugglers.
Some of their tactics for circumventing stupid rules are quite
imaginative.

The story goes of a gal who bought a small plant of a special
rhododendron in Seattle and to get it past the douane, tucked it into
her big-hair do, popped her hat back on, and sailed through customs
unhindered.


--
Rodger Whitlock
Victoria, BC, Canada
to send email, change atlantic to pacific
and invalid to net