Because it's a common phrase? Same as "get carded"?
English is flexible; almost any combination of words can start to have meaning.
English is flexible; almost any combination of words can start to have meaning.
This isn't a judgement on the article; it you don't want to say they were trespassing, then you should say it differently: they were _charged with_ or _accused of_ trespassing, etc.
Correct. But it is, sometimes, a transitive verb. One can trespass (go somewhere one is not allowed), and one can be trespassed (be banned from a property). One can even be trespassed against, which has a different meaning altogether (to be wronged by someone else).
I think you and the other commenters are confused by the usage of “trespassing someone” because it’s not an everyday usage of the term. “Trespassing someone” is essentially shorthand for “formally banning someone.” Being formally banned from someplace (and notified of it) has special legal significance: it’s basically what determines whether you get kicked out (in the case of mere trespassing) versus getting arrested (criminal trespass). That’s why this phrasing is especially common among cops and other legal personnel.
> Saying someone got trespassed is like saying you were driven when you go somewhere in your car, or that the door opened itself; you're taking the agency away from the person doing the trespassing and saying that they didn't actually do it themselves, but rather someone else did it/it something that happened to them.
It’s not like that at all. The difference between “she trespassed” and “he trespassed her” is not the same as the difference between “the vase broke” and “she broke the vase,” even though both are examples of intransitive/transitive uses of a verb. Humans discussing trespassing in a legal context found it convenient for “trespass” to gain a new meaning when used transitively. This usage has now been around for decades so it’s not particularly new anymore, but it’s still uncommon because most people don’t have a need to talk about trespassing in a legal context, and notice of trespass in particular.
The _noun_ tresspass, on the other hand, can refer to the charge, the act itself, or a case regarding such. Perhaps this is what you're thinking of?
Etymology: the word tresspass is derived from crossing (violating) the law.
> Humans discussing trespassing in a legal context...
Legal definitions may not follow common definitions, but they generally don't contradict them. Legal language tends not to use words that have contradictory meanings (see: inflammable), as it makes it rather difficult to have a clear meaning.
> Cops and other legal personnel
Cops are not legal personnel, they are enforcers. They aren't trained in legal language.
-----
Dictionaries consulted: Webster's, Collins, American heritage, Cambridge, Cornell Wex, ecfr.gov, just about every dictionary I can find other than OED (requires payment) (most websites just quote one of the first three).
Further information on the use of tresspass in this way can be found at https://www.visualthesaurus.com/cm/dictionary/trespassers-wi...
That is one definition, yes, though to my ear it feels archaic and has mostly been replaced with “trespass against.”
> If you search for translations/conjugations of _tresspass_, _was trespassed_ is not listed (_was trespassing_ is, referring to the trespasser).
That’s not surprising, since as I said, “trespass someone” in the sense of “ban someone from property” is not everyday usage, except by cops.
> The _noun_ tresspass, on the other hand, can refer to the charge, the act itself, or a case regarding such. Perhaps this is what you're thinking of?
No, what I’m thinking of is exactly what I said. Watch police bodycam videos and you’ll encounter this usage all the time. See also this blog post that I linked in another comment: https://www.visualthesaurus.com/cm/dictionary/trespassers-wi...
> They aren't trained in legal language.
I wasn’t referring to formal legal language. I was referring to language in common use by police when enforcing law, as well as some commenters on Hacker News discussing cases of police enforcing law.
I know it's a common phrase (albeit sa uniquely american one? Never heard this from e.g. Brits). I'm asking how it came to be that way when it seemingly makes no sense.
> Same as "get carded"?
No, because "being carded" (if I understand correctly) is something that does in fact happen to you. In trespassing, you are the one doing the trespassing (to something/someone else). That's why I find it so weird that Americans turn the subject into object in the sentence.
> English is flexible; almost any combination of words can start to have meaning
Sure. But taking a perfectly fine sentence and turning the subject into an object (when the physical reality is unchanged) seems strange, and warrants curiosity.
> albeit sa uniquely american one? Never heard this from e.g. Brits
According to this lexicography blog post, datasets reveal the transitive definition to be most common in New Zealand. https://www.visualthesaurus.com/cm/dictionary/trespassers-wi...
Here are some examples of it being used on a NZ website: https://www.police.govt.nz/use-105/trespass
In summary:
(1) It's not an American thing at all. I was wrong.
(2) It's not new. I was wrong.
(3) It has its roots in authorities charging or threatening to charge someone with the act of trespassing. I learned something today :-)
TLDR: "I was trespassed" means "I was charged with the crime of trespassing" (or "threatened with being charged with the crime of tresapssing").
Can you please give other examples? I can't think of any and I can't let it go