"Each and Every" and "Whether or Not"
Roy Jacobsen
royj at writingclearandsimple.com
Wed May 23 06:36:26 MDT 2007
The thing about those "legal" doublets and triplets--and most
"legalese," in fact--is that, legally speaking, they're not necessary. A
document written in plain English can be just as legally binding as one
clogged up with lawyerly gobbledygook.
No, IANAL (I Am Not A Lawyer), but I was told this by Joseph Kimble,
Thomas Cooley Law School professor and editor-in-chief of The Scribes
Journal of Legal Writing. (I interviewed Kimble for The Editorial Eye.
For what it's worth, you can read the interview here:
*http://tinyurl.com/2h8lzx)
*
Back to the subject of technical documentation, I tend to delete such
doublets whenever I find them.
Roy Jacobsen
Writing, Clear and Simple
http://rmjacobsen.squarespace.com
Stuart Burnfield wrote:
> David Crystal has this to say in his excellent book, 'The Stories of
> English' (pub. Allen Lane, 2004):
>
> "As the profession of the law became regularized during the thirteenth
> century, French replaced Latin as the primary language of legal
> expression... Then , during the fifteenth century, law French was
> gradually replaced by law English.
> ...
> The problem was: how can tradition be respected yet precision maintained
> when there are three languages competing for attention?
> ...
> The solution, in many cases, was: don't choose; use both. In Middle
> English we see the rise of the legal lexical doublets which would become
> one of the stylistic hallmarks of that profession. Old English _goods_
> and Old English _chattels_ resulted in Middle English legalese _goods
> and chattels_."
>
> Crystal gives examples of such doublets (fit and proper; acknowledge and
> confess) and triplets (give, devise, and bequeath; right, title, and
> interest) and goes on to say:
>
> "And it was not long before the habit of doubling became extended to
> pairs of words regardless of their language of origin... In _have and
> hold_, _let or hindrance_, and _each and every_, English words are
> together."
>
> Stuart
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
More information about the TECHWR-L
mailing list