Comments on: The Sesquipedalian Septuagenarian

By: Frank

Frank — Wed, 20 Dec 2006 03:26:55 +0000

As for Pedant: yes, you got me. I never won the certamen competitions!

As for Orin: It looks like we’ve got a conflict between Peter Preterit and skeptical as to exactly why & how Selya picks the rare words. If skeptical is right, I’m with you–this is mere obfuscation.

But I will say that, now that dictionary.com is but a mouseclick away, no one should be too worried about a rich vocabulary. If I put a weird word in, I usually assure it can be looked up online. Same for latin expressions (where I get the additional help of photographic-memoried commenters!)

By: skeptical

skeptical — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 17:39:49 +0000

I interviewed to be a Selya clerk (more than a decade ago) and prior to the interview, thought it might be a wonderful educational experience to work with someone with such an awesome vocabulary at his disposal. His clerks at the time made quite clear that one of the jobs of a Selya clerk was to find obscure phrases and words to spice up the opinions. Another job was to pick up his dry cleaning. I withdrew from consideration for the clerkship. Perhaps these clerks were exaggerating — I presumed not, but obviously don’t know first hand.

By: Peter the Preterit

Peter the Preterit — Sun, 17 Dec 2006 17:39:09 +0000

Last year, at a lavish lawyerly lunch, I asked the judge about his linguistic excesses, and he explained that he only allows himself exactly the right word in exactly the right context — and guards against the inclination to decorate his opinions just for the sake of the glam and glitter that comes from glib grammar.

By: Pedant

Pedant — Sun, 17 Dec 2006 00:11:20 +0000

Ho. Ly. Cow. Orin, I’m impressed that you managed to edit that down for a casebook. That is seriously bad writing. I have no problem with unusual words, if they’re the right words. But the problem here isn’t unusual words; I know every word he uses and I had to read those paragraphs three times just to understand what he was talking about. This is not a problem a reader can solve with a dictionary; it’s a problem the writer must solve, preferably with Strunk and White.

(Also, he doesn’t use the words or allusions carefully, and so ends up saying perhaps too much. To “out-Herod Herod,” for example, is to overact. Does he mean to suggest that the plaintiff is lying–that he doesn’t really mean what he’s saying?)

On the other hand, is it possible that he’s intentionally explained this simple issue with verbose and histrionic paragraphs in order to point out the absurdity of the plaintiff’s (apparently) similar approach to litigation? If so, then I take back everything I said and stand in awe. (Though the joke could probably have been pulled off more smoothly, and in my view it’s a bit self-indulgent to play games like this instead of making the law comprehensible–but still. Wow.)

By: Orin Kerr

Orin Kerr — Sat, 16 Dec 2006 23:39:20 +0000

His opinions are “incomprehensible” only to someone who can’t be bothered to look up the words that he can’t comprehend.

Yes, true. However, that describes almost every lawyer, and probably every litigant. A handful of people may have the time and willingness to make the opinions understabable, but I suspect only a handful do.

I believe I completely translated a Selya opinion only once, when I put an opinion in a casebook I was publishing. And before I put the opinion in the casebook, I had to edit carefully and make sure that I wasn’t putting too much of a burden on students. I blogged about the difficulty here:

http://www.orinkerr.com/2006/05/24/choosing-opinions-for-a-casebook/

By: Pedant

Pedant — Sat, 16 Dec 2006 23:23:32 +0000

Not to stray from the obviously far more important Latin grammar issues, but–my dictionary does not include “yurhnlippy” (it does, of course, include “burlefted,” though (obviously) that form is listed under “burleft”).

My dictionary does, however, include all the words in Selya’s opinions. His opinions are “incomprehensible” only to someone who can’t be bothered to look up the words that he can’t comprehend.

By: Orin Kerr

Orin Kerr — Sat, 16 Dec 2006 22:52:04 +0000

Frank,

To be fair, the criticism is not that Selya’s opinions fail to be “dry and neutral as possible,” but that the intentional use of unknown words can render them incomprehensible. Reading a Selya opinion can be like reading an essay filled with yurhnlippy. Perhaps some readers love bungulubru, which might explain a lot. But surely the law must stand for renkedew, right? I suspect most litigants would prefer a clear opinion that everyone can understand to an opinion filled with burlefted furghneist.

By: Pedant

Pedant — Sat, 16 Dec 2006 20:51:38 +0000

I believe that in “res ipsa loquitur,” res is singular feminine nominative, as is ipsa, which modifies “res” (“the thing itself speaks”). (Loquitur looks passive, but it’s really deponent.) But let’s see what the Latin prof says….

(The heck with this law stuff–*this* is fun!)

By: Frank

Frank — Sat, 16 Dec 2006 17:07:53 +0000

Count me chastened! I did intend for both the opinions to be “talking,” as only the latter contained the unusual word. I believe “ipsa loquuntur” is right, since I was assuming ipsa was plural second declension neuter…but let me check with a latin prof.

By: Pedant

Pedant — Sat, 16 Dec 2006 05:02:11 +0000

Would it either be “opinio ipsa loquitur” (probably this is right, because you mention only one opinion) or, if plural, “opiniones ipsae loquuntur”?

(I will remain anonymous for this one–rather too pedantic, plus I’m asking because I want to review my Latin–and this makes no difference to your substantive point whatsoever!)