A man in Murcia, Spain, was charged with insulting his wife calling her a fox. The judge dismissed the charge saying that the term could be interpreted as meaning 'astute'.
I am a little surprised, being interested in languages, at the judge's view. On top of that, the man had also said that he wished to see her in the cemetery, in a pine box. From that one could deduce that the man had indeed insulted her; according to the dictionary, a fox when referred to a woman, can also mean prostitute, hooker.
I have high regard for judges, except when they act as linguists. More often than not, their interpretation of words are questionable, like most people I guess, depending on how they choose amongst the varied meanings of the same word. But then in a case when the interpretation puts a person's honour at stake, or determining guilt or innocence, the precise interpretation is of the utmost importance. The accused, with several antecedence for cruel treatment to the wife, calling her fox or foxy is no compliment of her astute character.
Of course the tone in which a dubious word is used should also be taken into consideration. In the heat of an argument, or in utter frustration of something a spouse has done or failed to do, one might say, even loudly, 'I will kill you!' I know I have said that more than once to someone I care for a lot, and I certainly didn't mean to carry out such a nonsense threat. Or I would say to a friend 'You are crazy' or worse 'You are out of your bloominy mind!' That might even be a way of expressing my admiration for something pretty courageous, amazing achievements even, that the friend has done.
All comes to common sense. I am sure most judges practice that all the time. How can a judge even think that the man wishing to see his wife dead is a compliment though?
