Note: This is a repost of my September 28, 2014 post. For some reasons the stats shows very low worldwide readership on this post. So i thought i would be better doing it again. At least the video clip is cool. That's why.
September 28, 2014
Much as cooking
of things and serving it clean, no doubt creativity is also defined and
valued that way with the perspective of the value laden secrets of
recipients in question.
But this is also
what gave me a good laugh today from the start to end, at least in the
first watch, and I am sure those
who watch Rachel Ray Show usually wouldn’t think of anything other than
that she is as apparently very good at naming things, speaking simple,
entertaining audience, and so on.
Yet legal writing, too, proves to be very
hard in denying things analogously as similar to what Rachel Ray does
her cooking ingredients like her fresh herbs, garlic, and chicken stock
etc to boost flavors. When it comes to grammar
however, this in turns proves to be very hard at the same time but in
agreeing with the artificial gulf
of meaning between denotational meaning and non-denotational meaning
for more than one reason because of that it has the rigorous framework
for description and the firm
grid in terms of how the endless vagaries of language use can be
interpreted is at first and because it has the framework where no
objective aspects of meaning are
inextricably linked with subjective and interactional ones in their
respective semantic affirmatives is the other.
While there isn’t at the
same time such a thing as error free legal letters though, one may
still wonder how some lawyers do such
sophisticated writings without a further
training in language other than the training in law cases and case
than that six years of university education and the educational
environments, the addendum like the heredity linguistics-wealth,
to the language and legal culture, etcetera also seems to be the factors in
this for such an
extent to which one has its tendency for perfection in the legal
all, the environments in which one is nurtured in time is maybe another
which contributes the much higher degree of intuition for correctness,
averaging the standard at the same time above than those with graduate
level of education and slightly below than those with
postgraduate level of education. And those who have the heredity wealth,
cultural or environmental affiliations, and enough education as the
required background for the intuition to conduct those grammatical
investigations may also find this to be
Some years ago I had a chance to
look at many legal writings of prominent lawyers in the city of Toronto for my interest for grammar in legal writings.
The most fascinating writing in this venue was a letter in the late 80s by the name
of Scott Kennedy consisting of totaling 35 sentences in which of those 34
clauses that I wasn’t spontaneously or naturally able to write. Unfortunately I didn’t have
further chance to look for more in detail but valued the artistic merit, only
from those available evidents, as the linguistic wealth of one in their at
least 60 years of age.
And the notable changes or 'revolution--if you may want to call it so'
in writing practices of the 1980s, at least with respect to the Canadian
or North American practices today that I like to add here, is the
cluttering out and
serving it clean strategy that eliminated the overburdened linguistic
arbitraries of that time as shown here below.
The elimination of misunderstood or unnecessary punctuations (the
commas in particular) year by year, reduction of margins sizes,
reduction of indention to zero from six to eight spaces, justifying of
text align, and footnoting etc that were not the norms of writing and
legal writing in the 1970s and prior years is an example as far as our
modern styling grammar is concerned. I have no idea however as to the
reason behind this after thoughts of the 1970s other than taking it as
one of those widespread linguistic
neo-renaissance, so to speak, just as Chomsky and followers at those
times went out for and came up with those language and grammar theories
that had been not available. Now back to a response on the subject 'the common grammar errors in our legal writings, i would write something on this in a later days sometimes.