Behold Wikipedia’s article on the imaginatively gruesome practices associated with hanging. My particular focus in this thread is the sections on hanging by methods OTHERR THAN the neck – upside-down, “by the feet,” and (grotesquely) “by the ribs.”
Pedants, grammar Nazis and English majors (I consider myself a member of one of those groups) agree that “hanged” is the term of choice when a victim is deliberately punished/harmed (as opposed to “hung” when an object is suspended). I believe death per se is not a necessary outcome for using the term “hanged,” as I recall stories of people being hanged but reprieved when the rope broke (since we are concerned with usage, it doesn’t matter if these stories are true, merely the language choice used in them) . But I think some harm, or intent to harm, is implicit in the term, as one doesn’t say “I got hanged up in traffic” or “those briars,” but one would probably say “The mountain climber slipped and was accidentally hanged by his line.”
Does the term “hanged” apply to hangings NOT by the neck?
The Wikipedia article is [del]shockingly[/del] inconsistent in its use of the terms “hanged by the feet,” “hung up by the feet,” and even “hanged up.” But if we were being [del]pedantic[/del] correct, would we describe the victims of all intentional hangings as “hanged,” regardless of exotic methodology?
Is a victim hanged by the feet or ribs, or hung?