English.... but *not* English.

Gabe   Friday, June 03, 2005, 17:49 GMT
Hey, I'm doing research right now into certain laws, and am *so* frustrated with all the legal speak! Here's an example of ONE sentence from 1958 Massachusetts legal code:

Whoever, by playing at cards, dice or other game, or by betting on the sides or hands of those gaming, loses to a person so playing or betting money or goods, and pays or delivers the same or any part thereof to the winner, or whoever pays or delivers money or other thing of value to another person for or in consideration of a lottery, policy or pool ticket, certificate, check or slip, or for or in consideration of a chance of drawing or obtaining any money, prize or other thing of value in a lottery or policy game, pool or combination, or other bet, may recover such money or the value of such goods in contract; and if he does not within three months after such loss, payment or delivery, without covin or collusion, prosecute such action with effet, any other person may sue for and recover in tort treble the value thereof.

Whew... I'm beginning to despise lawyers... There MUST be an easier way to phrase that. I get so lost sometimes just trying to decipher what it's trying to say. I think I get *this* one, but has anyone here come up with a good method of reading legislative code meaningfully? They like to split open clauses and jam a bunch of stuff in, so that by the time I get to the end of the clause I've forgotten the beginning!
Mxsmanic   Friday, June 03, 2005, 20:03 GMT
Some lawyers mistakenly believe that by putting as much detail as possible into a law or contract, they will close all loopholes. The reality is often the opposite, since any loophole explicitly closed in a text implies that any loophole not mentioned may be legitimately exploited, thereby opening the door to even more loopholes than there were originally.
Elaine   Friday, June 03, 2005, 20:51 GMT
Heh heh. There is no good method to reading Legalese, except by reading slowly to allow the brain to process information, and breaking down lengthy sentences into shorter, comprehensible ones. You might also have to read the text over and over until that proverbial light bulb switches on. If it doesn't switch on, be patient. Walk away from your readings, take a breather, then come back to it later. I can't tell you how many times I've thrown my law books across the room in anger while studying for my Constitutional Law and Business Law exams! I was not a patient person back then (which probably explains why I never pursued a law degree).

You might be interested in checking out this site on eradicating Legalese by switching to plain English. I think it's meant to be serious, but I find it quite humorous.

"Eschew, Evade, and/or Eradicate Legalese"
http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/legalese.htm
Deborah   Friday, June 03, 2005, 21:27 GMT
Elaine, that is funny. I work in a law firm and I see these brilliant changes being implemented, although I suspect the impetus is to make it easier to stay within court-imposed word limits, rather than to make the documents easier to read.

I think it's funny when a plaintiff or defendant has to be defined when he/she/it is the only plaintiff or defendant in the case:

Plaintiff Joe Blow ("Plaintiff")

As if you'd get confused when he's referred to as "Plaintiff" without defining him first.
Deborah   Friday, June 03, 2005, 21:30 GMT
Gabe, how can you complain about that measly sentence! I've seen single sentences that take up almost the entire page.
Deborah   Friday, June 03, 2005, 21:31 GMT
Uh-oh, I used the word "Blow." That's troll bait.
Gabe   Saturday, June 04, 2005, 05:55 GMT
Haha... nice link. Those seem so... *obvious* but I guess lawyers need it all spelled out for them. ;-)

But yeah, all the forthwith, therefrom, heretofore's, and so on, bother me!
Damian   Saturday, June 04, 2005, 09:22 GMT
If you are of a mind to enquire further into the complexities of the English Language and it's usage in a legal environment or to determine exactly what is meant by the intricate verbiage contained in official documentation then I suggest that you gain entrance to the following internet web sites.

In normal speak have a wee gander at these:

http://www.putlearningfirst.com/language/21plain/21plain.html

http://www.plainenglish.co.uk
Damian   Saturday, June 04, 2005, 09:32 GMT
The Americans seem to be worse when it comes to superfluous gobbledegook crap (that word again Deborah). Why do their military use the word "affirmative" when all they need to say is "YES"!!!!

The Queen of England had to try very hard to stop laughing when she had to endure a newly installed American Ambassador to the UK who "had audience with her" (this just means "meet" in proper English) when he used a whole array of superfluous words contained in about ten extended sentences using very flowery Language when all he really said in the end was: "Pleased to meet you Ma'am and I plan to do a good job in the interests of our two nations".

Maybe he was trying too hard to impress the Gracious Lady.
Deborah   Saturday, June 04, 2005, 20:06 GMT
Damian, I've noticed that tendency in the American military and police forces. In interviews, the police always refer to a person as an "individual."
Javine   Saturday, June 04, 2005, 20:47 GMT
Hi Debby! Indeed it is troll bait to use the word "blow" Again you make it pathetically clear that u r indeed a hopeless flirt!
Elaine   Saturday, June 04, 2005, 21:13 GMT
IMHO, people who resort to "superfluous gobbledegook crap" in everyday conversation do so to disguise their educational shortcomings. There's this female supervisor of my workplace mailroom who does this all the time, peppering her sentences with "consequently", "aforementioned" and "behooves". It drives me absolutely batty whenever I have to talk to this woman on the phone, so now I just email her whenever necessary. But one time I sent her a casually written email telling her that I would be stopping by the mailroom later that afternoon, and she responded with an email written like a formal business letter, correcting me not refer to it as "mailroom" but as "Mail Services Division" -- signed as

"[Her Name]
Supervising Director of Barcode Automation Program,
Mail Services Division"

<ROLLING EYES>