George Orwell once wrote, “Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech you are used to seeing in print.” It’s from an essay called “Politics and the English Language,” a wonderful piece he wrote in 1946 and that’s worth reading today. But what did he mean? Perhaps it’s as simple as “Be original” [...]
Filed under: Usage | Comments Off
Communicating with accuracy and precision is important in legal writing (and legal speaking). Using the right word for your intended meaning aids clarity and enhances credibility. So with the goals of clarity and credibility in mind, I offer a list of confused and misused words, along with explanations. Some of these explanations may surprise you, [...]
Filed under: Usage | Comments Off
Do you live in the land of and/or? Are you Andorian? (The clever name comes from David Elliott, The Orians, the Andians, and the Andorians, 50 Clarity 10, 11 (2004)). Then it’s time to move. Every source on legal language that discusses and/or advises not to use it. Here’s a sampling: “And/or is best discarded.” [...]
Filed under: Usage | Comments Off
In legal writing, we don’t use superscript ordinals. In other words, we do this: 5th not this: 5th (Background: numbers that have the additional letters, like st, nd, rd, and th are called ordinals: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th. When you shrink the letters and elevate them, they’re called superscript ordinals: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and [...]
The State was able to prove there was a delectable amount of cocaine on the premises. The plaintiff cannot establish that the defendant engaged in willful and wonton conduct. The defendant exercised control over the plaintiff by directing that the work be done with equipment the defendant controlled and by marinating a right to substitute [...]
Filed under: Usage | 1 Comment »
Witnesseth, Controversial, Long-Lived Archaism The word witnesseth, a legal term used in deeds, contracts, and other formal documents, passed away Monday after a decades-long decline and what some say were well-deserved attacks. Those close to the word said it died in a legal form pulled up on a smart phone in Little Rock, Arkansas. It [...]
Filed under: Plain English, Usage | 1 Comment »
Are there any empirical studies showing that the quality of the writing in a brief has an effect on its success? In general, the answer is no. But new research is happening, and I’d like to highlight two important articles on the subject. The first article reports on a study of the use of intensifiers [...]
Filed under: Persuasion, Usage | 1 Comment »
It’s too bad most lawyers consider contractions too informal for memos and briefs. Contractions really do make a piece of writing more vigorous and readable.
Filed under: Usage | No Comments »
These are the little word-usage mistakes that bother me. My peeved attitude is entirely nonrational: they’re generally harmless mistakes, and most have worked their way into acceptance—at least in speech. I’m actually sometimes impatient with word pedants, but I can be that way, too. Here goes: try and Don’t try and go to the store. [...]
Filed under: Usage | 4 Comments »
In my writing, I observe the distinction between that and which, using that for restrictive modifying clauses and [comma] which for nonrestrictive clauses. I try to teach my students the difference, but I do not make it a topic of intense focus in the first-year legal-writing course. When you see mistakes, the mistake is almost [...]
Filed under: Usage | 3 Comments »
Powered by Wordpress MU - Protected by Akismet
Blog with WordPress
