language

[jbor]

on 20/3/03 11:51 PM, Malignd at malignd at yahoo.com wrote:

> <<As far as lawyers trying to make "legal terms as
> unambiguous as possible", that's just laughable, and
> you really do need to read Gaddis's _Frolic_.>>
> 
> Calling it laughable doesn't make it so.  You're
> arguing like Millison.

You really do know how to hurt a guy!

> Signing one's name to a
> binding contract gives one new and visceral
> appreciation for the specificities of legal
> terminology.

And for the obscure lexis and jargon, and the prolixity and almost
ritualistic circumlocutions and tautology. All of which is used (whether
intentionally or not) to exclude "standard" English speakers from the
discourse.

I certainly hope you're not trying to suggest that legalese - the style of
written language used by lawyers and judges in their professional work - and
"standard" English are one and the same thing!

best