[HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Legalese: (Was Run-on sentences)

[P. Alexis Nguyen]

Carol:
> I'm aware of the purpose of a definitions section, but it wouldn't be needed
> if the contract were worded unambiguously in plain English in the first
> place.
<<<SNIP>>>
> I think I said (but maybe it was in the post I lost!) that jargon
> (gobbledygook) is different from legitimate technical terms, which, of
> course, need to be defined for most lay people. For example, if a patient is
> diagnosed with herpes zoster, he might panic if he's not told that it's not
> what we think of as herpes but shingles, a very painful condition but at
> least not one that a man like my father (who suffered from it) would be
> ashamed of.

Ali:
I don't understand.  If you're all right with a doctor using
"legitimate technical terms," then why is it not all right for a
lawyer to use them?  It's about precision.  Contracts/legal documents
pertain to people's lives, and I firmly believe in precision of
language when it concerns something important.

In your example of shingles vs herpes zoster, you forget that shingles
is simple another terms.  What if I didn't know what shingles was
either?  I could accuse you of using jargon (much like using
deposition), but it's just that you're being precise (though herpes
zoster is still more precise than shingles).  A *doctor* is required
to explain things like shingles, just as a lawyer should be consulted
to explain what a deposition entails, and in the same vein, you can
consult a dictionary for both definitions but they're not normal
things a layperson would be required to know.

On top of that, trying to rewrite jargon into "plain English" would
just result in something significantly longer, especially if you were
unwilling to give up precision.  For example, the piece that you,
Carol, cited would need to be rewritten in such a way as to explain
every last term in order to get it into plain English and not
sacrifice precision.  Now, I don't know about anyone else, but I had
no problems reading and understanding my lease when I rented my apt,
but that was 10 pgs or so.  If that number exploded to 40 or so pages
just so it was in plain English, my first instinct would be to just
sign my name, and while I've trained myself out of that habit, I know
far more people who are more inclined to read a 10 pgs document that
they half understand than a 40 pgs document that they will totally
understand - people are odd like that.  My lease was written as close
to plain English as it could get, but in the end, it's still a legally
binding document, a contract between two parties, and frankly, in that
situation, I value precision far more than my ability to understand
the document (because had I not understood the document, you can bet I
would've been asking questions).

Like Deb said, a badly written document is the fault of the person
writing it, but otherwise, why knock precision?  We don't say anything
about economists for throwing around terms like CPI, GDP, supply and
demand, etc because those terms have come to be more well known, but
there seems to be altogether too much willingness to mock legalese
(because lawyers seems to have become the butt of jokes in America).

What's so great about plain English anyway?  It's ridiculously
imprecise.  It's like the difference between using weights and ratios
to bake instead of volume.  One is significantly better (the
weights/ratio, in case you can't tell) than the other, but the other
is somewhat more convenient so we stick with it because it usually
works.

Carol, please don't read any of this as an attack in any way; I am
really trying to understand your point, mainly because it is so
foreign a thought to me, but I'm not quite sure of your distinction
between plain English vs jargon vs specialized language.  Where's the
line?  And how do we maintain precision but still not make completely
unwieldy documents that absolutely no one (including lawyers) will
read?


> Carol, who thinks that we should all say what we mean and mean what we say,
> preferably without resorting to specialized vocabularies and definitely
> without resorting to jargon

Ali:
I do agree with this.  We should say what we mean and mean what we
say.  BUT for me, stool sample and deposition are examples of saying
exactly what I mean.  Saying something like "they're a 501(c)3" is
immensely more useful than just saying "they're a nonprofit that you
can donate money to and take a tax exemption" - it's shorter and very,
very precise.  Or as the TV weather anchor just said, a LEEDS building
is far more precise than a "green" building - though one does sort of
refer to the other, LEEDS explains more than just green.

If I am to say what I mean, then I mean to be as precise as possible.
When people ask me if it's warm outside, I usually cite a temperature
instead of yes or no.  Precision.  I'm a big fan.  :)

~Ali, who hopes this email still makes sense toward the end (it's 1am
and my eyes are trying to close themselves without my permission)