Legalese/ Traditional legal language v. Plain English

^^ 8) check my initial post thanks. where i say i do have a coupla arguments but they arent strong. also check my responses to ppl along the way where i develop from their answers.

this isnt a 'write my essay' thread, btw. sorry if to you it seems so. if it does, get out of the thread and dont take part; easy. it's merely asking people if they have an opinion that is like my opinion. it's encouraging debate and im not merely on the sidelines watching it and taking notes. as you can see i am participating.

as you can also see, the thread was fabulous before you decided to intervene and stir up stuff and call me stupid. so if u cant refrain from making those kind of comments, i kindly ask you stay out of my thread (whose contention you dont seem to understand) or, if you really really must, take it to PMs.

thanks.

*edit*
by the way, what is so wrong with people helping other people anyway? you've never asked for help??? autopilot offered to help me develop my ideas. is that such a big deal to you? part of being human is asking for help. im not born with knowledge, english is my second language anyway (been speaking it for 10 yrs) and this IS a hard topic. part of the reasons for starting a thread is requiring help. it seems you're not familiar with that notion?
 
Last edited:
**update**

i was looking over the question again. it seems to occupy my mind in between other bits of reading. i will endeavour to get the book they take the topic from (it's basically a slab of text) --> Don Watson's "Death Sentence: The Decay of Public Language" and ill have to just counterargue, like ive been doing so far; which is weak, but at least im not gonna give it up. ive got a list of websites ive yet to trudge through but some arguments are forming within my head.

Watson writes, "[Legalese] that defies normal understanding is, as Primo Levi wrote, "an ancient repressive artifice, known to all churches, the typical vice of our [legal system]..." [Legalese] remains the language of power. In all societies, to 'take power is to win speech'. Whatever [their] appearance, intimidation and manipulation come as naturally to [lawyers] as polite instruction, information and enlightenment. That is why vigilance is needed: an argument concerning [plain language] is an argument concerning liberty."

what im basically saying thus far is that i dont agree with him. i like the argument he is trying to overcome- that to take power is to win speech. maybe can develop that further but im assuming that would entail a deep analysis of the legal system and im not sure i want to go down that path. my main point lies in attacking the argument that an argument concerning plain language is an argument concerning liberty. i was reading Robyn Penman's article and it sparked some ideas in my head. i have some points i want to argue, including the fact that the notion of plain language keeps changing over the years. in the 70s, the idea of plain language concentrated on structure and style, not so much the actual use of words. furthermore, what plain language means to each individual differs. i may take plain language to mean maybe 'newspeak'(sp?) or anything that's written in newspaper. you may take it to mean jargon spoken amongst your friends, or even slang. who's going to decide what plain language is on a national level, if not international?? will other countries be forced to also change their writing and drafting policies so that Australia can maintain relations in regards to trade etc? how will we keep plain language consistent? if the past is anything to go by, we will need constant updating of documents written in plain language, because the notion will always change.
furthermore- just because something is reduced in wordcount (by using plain language) or written using plain words (by using plain language) does not necessarily mean that it is understood. therefore plain language would not be the correct answer to the problem we are encountering, as it would not target underlying issues with the legal system- the fact that many people dont understand or get the gist of certain legislation.
also, since we now have litigation over current statutes, we will no doubt have litigation over plain language statutes. is it worth the hassle? not all plain language words are unambiguous.
it will also have implications outside the legal system sphere (as well as universities having to revamp teaching methods, subjects etc). other industries may question their jargon too. are we going to require doctors to speak coloquially?? i mean, they need to explain certain technical words to their patients; is that any different to the xisting legal system whereby litigation/solicitor consultation explains meaning? we're still paying to go see a doctor for explanations! same with mechanics and other professions which have their own jargon.

anyway, thats mainly what i have so far. i think i missed out some things, but theres too many things racing through my head.

if you want to add anything else, please do but please refrain from adding anything not worthwhile, such as Dr. J has done.

thanks again for all your replies!
 
p.s it doesnt matter if you're from other nations, add your two cents because it's still significant. i know that the US is teaching basically across-the-board, in nearly all law universities, how to write in plain language. if you're familiar with those subjects, what exactly are they teaching u within the course??? im interested in finding out first hand. thanks!
 
anyway. so far no one has been able to find a good point for what i wanna argue then...so it looks like ill be forced to argue something i dont want to argue this sucks.
Click to expand...

Christ, don't be so sensitive. And yes, the post you made sounds like you were blaming others for not coming through with an valid point for your arguement.

In an earlier thread "...pleeeeeeeeease keep them coming. =)"

So yes, to me, you sound like someone trying to get help without doing her own in-depth outside research.

Nothing wrong that with necesssarily. But, again....

anyway. so far no one has been able to find a good point for what i wanna argue then
Click to expand...

Why the hell should anyone have to formulate an argument for you?? You're in law school from christ's sake.
 
^^ get a life, stop following me around, grow some manners, and dont post in my threads anymore. simple enough? i thought it was; it appears you cant even think that much for yourself. maybe youre the one that needs to be told what to do? the earlier thread, if you read it entirely, is in regards to the comments, which people made on MY ideas as listed.

for fucks sake, stop wasting time judging others, go do something worthwhile. this is my thread, if i want help so be it, i have my own ideas (if you bothered to read above them youd realise that).
anything else you write will be ignored.
 
Sorry tootz - I've been around here a lot longer than you and I call 'em like I see 'em.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top