[vnabhi]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

This sent me scurrying to look stuff up! I discovered that tantamount is a verb, although I thought it was not. However, usual usage would be to say is tantamount to. This is the first time I have ever come across it used as a verb

Well, it is always a learning experience to most of us. I have been 'spoiled' by my law degree, and therefore you might get more of such legal parlance from me.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Oh, you law guys speak a strange, strange language!

[vnabhi]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

Oh, you law guys speak a strange, strange language!

Ha ha--you are right on that one! I always make fun of my pals who are advocates about their propensity to use words like 'the same' when a simple word like 'it' would do. For example, 'he bought a new scooter and diligently cleans the same every morning'.

I poke them by saying that a lawyer has a tendency to think that if he does not use 'the same', someone might think he is referring to another scooter ----such is the degree of precision they practise in everyday life

[Ravveendrra]

Originally Posted by vnabhi

Ha ha--you are right on that one! I always make fun of my pals who are advocates about their propensity to use words like 'the same' when a simple word like 'it' would do. For example, 'he bought a new scooter and diligently cleans the same every morning'.

I poke them by saying that a lawyer has a tendency to think that if he does not use 'the same', someone might think he is referring to another scooter ----such is the degree of precision they practise in everyday life

Lawyers tend to use archaic language as many laws are archaic! LOL .

Jokes apart, lawyers cannot run the risk of being misinterpreted hence "the same" instead of an "it". The "it" might give others a chance to connect "it" to something else (other than the scooter) and thereby create trouble (read litigation) which will go to make a whole bunch of lawyers happy (read rich).

Another reason for the archaic language used by lawyers is that laws tend to be old and in archaic language. Deeds etc. too were first drafted in the centuries past (I believe by either clerks or junior lawyers out to please their masters) and no one has bothered to clear the cobwebs since then. Verbose legal contracts are peculiar to the common law (English) systems while contracts drafted by practioners of civil law eg. from continental Europe tend to be simple documents which get to the heart of the matter right away and are content to state simply the intent of the parties.

Cheers,

[vnabhi]

Originally Posted by Ravveendrra

Lawyers tend to use archaic language as many laws are archaic! LOL .

Cheers,

Well said, Ravvs---that sounds good, especially when coming from a lawyer!!

Most Acts were drafted by clerks of East India Company, and it is a pain to get to the central theme of what that blighter is writing about. I often feel like giving such guys a one-liner from 'One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest'-----it is as simple as 'cut the bullshit and come to the point'.

Present day government and public sectors still use that archaic lingo. A good example is a notesheet stating ' In view of the above, please see my below...'

[Thad E Ginathom]

Lawyers have a vested interest in not being easily understood.

[naveenroy]

Originally Posted by EssYouWe

Funny thread...

Hope you guys see the funny side to this. (Not trying to be preachy here!)

10 Words You Need to Stop Misspelling - The Oatmeal

Totally

That site is just hilarious! Man, have been reading it from morning!

[Thad E Ginathom]

Yes, oatmeal is an excellent site, very funny indeed.

Not so totally offtopic... There is more than one good English lesson there!

[infotech58]

how many people have experienced this confusion with American English? Very common way to say "I know nothing" is "I don't know nothing" which took me off when I heard it for the first time.

[esteemer]

This thread's a boon. Everyday I wake up to love T-Bhp more and more.

So. Here's my query - Is "gotten" a real word? I don't know why, but I feel like using this word again and again, but refrain from doing so because I'm not sure of its usage.

Is this sentence correct : I remember the day my exams had gotten over.

[prateekm]

Originally Posted by esteemer

This thread's a boon. Everyday I wake up to love T-Bhp more and more.

So. Here's my query - Is "gotten" a real word? I don't know why, but I feel like using this word again and again, but refrain from doing so because I'm not sure of its usage.

Is this sentence correct : I remember the day my exams had gotten over.

Gotten is a word that exists in dictionary, it's not a slang. It is more commonly used in US English than the UK English where it is replaced by "have got".

[Thad E Ginathom]

Gotten survives in English in one fairly common saying: ill-gotten gains. Apart from that, it is never used, except in imitation of American, and then I think that is Brits misuse it! . I like the word, but I never can remember its correct usage.

I remember the day my exams had gotten over --- I don't think so. Who wouldn't say, "I remember the day my exams finished", or "I remember the last day of my exams"?

<after a look at the dictionary> Gotten means obtained or acquired, as in the gains in ill-gotten gains. It doesn't fit your line. Maybe: "I had gotten some sweets to celebrate my last exam"? Had gotten is a funny twisting of tenses too.

I don't know nothing --- this is slang, maybe: I cannot believe that the double negative is educated American English. Street talk, or a line from a song, maybe! Suggest you feel free never to use it!

[mallumowgli]

Originally Posted by rsjaurr

So if i have to ask someone (An American) his identity should i be saying "Do You American?" rather than "Are you American?"

Well, you try asking an American "Do you American" and then tell me his response

[ampere]

A totally different aspect to the world of English Language.

These are just my thoughts. Comments are welcome.

How many of us today still prefer to a read ?
Of that percentage, how many of us prefer to read classic English.
(I mean Hardy, Maugham, James Joyce, Dickens and the likes)
How many of us prefer to read classic poetry?


Why am I asking these questions?
Thats because I feel, one can write correct English, if he also READS it correctly.


I am not merely alluding to the fact that one needs to read classic English to write it correctly. I am just saying, it at least inspires one to make an attempt.

Today all of us only write what I call "Working English". An English which just has the basic elements of communication. May it be through acronyms or abbreviations. It does not matter if the protocol and the honour of language is adhered to. I sincerely feel, this facet of "perception of language" needs to change.

[mallumowgli]

Reading definitely helps. But in my case, when I do my business level communications, I have to take care that my language does not become a bit 'classical'. My inclination towards classical English literature (though am a fan of the Russian masters) makes my English a bit more old fashioned, but more correct from the grammar point of view. I've to re-read the sentences, re-arrange them and also break them down more often than not

I think reading contemporary literature/articles and business books gets you more closer to reality