Say it Ain't So!

Notice anything wrong with the photo caption above? A missing comma, perhaps?

Full disclosure: I am a staunch supporter of the serial comma (also called the “Oxford comma,” though I don’t use that phrase because I don’t want to contribute to Oxford’s appropriation of what should be common sense) and I tend to agree with Carbolic, who once remarked that "People who refuse to insert a serial comma would steal sheep." In case you haven't been sucked into this particular debate, the serial comma is the comma that real writers insert before the conjunction (usually “and”) when setting forth a list. Much ink has been spilled, and many brave young serial commas lost, no doubt, in the war over whether the serial comma is mandatory, desirable, or superfluous. For my part, it's near-mandatory, pretty much for the reasons the caption above is so funny.

Today is a sad day for those who share my news. Today’s sad news is that Oxford has officially dropped the “Oxford” comma from its detailed, lengthy, and at times snooty style guide. See here for a brief article and a highly distressing pie chart. Oxford’s new guidance provides:

As a general rule, do not use the serial/Oxford comma: so write ‘a, b and c’ not ‘a, b, and c’. But when a comma would assist in the meaning of the sentence or helps to resolve ambiguity, it can be used – especially where one of the items in the list is already joined by ‘and’ . . . .

Oxford be damned, I’m leaving my comma right where put them. I don’t have a devil-may-care attitude toward ambiguities (especially in legal writing), nor do I trust myself to catch every two-faced in every sentence I write. I view the serial as a tiny, curved insurance policy against situations – like the caption above – that could leave the reader wondering if I am aware of what I am saying. I will keep, like, and defend my serial comma. To the bitter end.


*Hat tip to Boalt's handsomest, dashingest Latin scholar for the tip.

2011 Banished Words

Happy New Year’s Eve, everyone.

For a couple years now I have posted the Lake Superior State University’s annual “List of Words Banished from the Queen’s English for Mis-use, Over-use and General Uselessness.” The list, I am afraid, is in decline.

The 2007 list had some truly obnoxious phrases (e.g., “we’re pregnant” — um, no, “she’s pregnant; we're having a baby.” Future fathers should be forever banned from saying “we are pregnant” until men actually have personal experience with morning sickness, hormonal Armageddon, and childbirth. Until then, they should show their support in some other way) and I felt the 2008 list was a true winner. It included: “organic” (as in, “my business is organic”); “wordsmithing” (sort of an insult to people who work with their hands); “post 9/11” (don’t even get me started); “give back” (which implies that one’s daily transactions throughout life are a form of theft); “random” (how can a person be random?); and “it is what it is” (no kidding?).

The reason those prior lists were so effective is that they were able to capture words and phrases whose popularity had surged in the preceding 12 months. They were fun to read because they told us something insightful about the preceding year. But the 2011 list? It mostly includes common (albeit sort of dumb) phrases that do not in any way define 2010. And frankly, the result is pretty crappy. Of the dozen entries on the list, only five belong:

• Mama grizzlies. (I actually don’t know if this belongs – it is truly obnoxious, but not “over used” or “misused” or “useless”)
• Refudiate. (Just . . . a stupid word coined during a confused moment in a stupid mind)
• BFF. (Real BFF’s don’t have to say so)
• Epic. (A fantastic literary word now commandeered by people who have never read a book)
• Live life to the fullest. (Ugh)

The rest are either just sort of meh:

• Wow factor
• Ah-ha moment
• The American people
• I’m just sayin’.

. . . or actually good, useful words:

• Man up. (We could stand to hear a bit more of this phrase in 2011, not less)
• Fail. (Not overused, mis-used, or useless, but check back next year)
• Google/Facebook as verbs. (I suppose the complainers have never xeroxed a sheet of paper, gassed their house to get rid of termites, or briefed an appeal)
• Viral. (What is wrong with this word? The word is used to describe something with the properties of a virus, be it describing a disease or an embarrassing YouTube clip)

The upshot here is that I am disappointed by the list for two years running. Maybe I am having an ah-ha moment in realizing that 2008 was an epic standout. Maybe the wow-factor will return with next year’s list. At any rate this year’s list was a fail. I’m just sayin’.

Wherein A Blog Post Was Written In Order To Demolish Texas

This filing is making the rounds. It is purportedly an emergency motion to extend a case management conference that is scheduled for this afternoon...right around the time of the World Series, Game 1.  It's only mildly amusing from my perspective, and honestly, if I was the judge, I'd be very angry. 

I also think the motion is a great example of some terrible legal writing.  So, to all the future lawyers, particularly the 1Ls, here's how NOT to write.  Ever.

1.  Passive voice.  For example, paragraph 5 is chock full of sentences that make me cringe.  "was discovered..." "was sold..."  Blah.  Terrible writing.

2.  I don't know what to call this, but it drives me nuts when lawyers write:  "love of the Rangers that has gone generally unrequited for thirty-eight (38) years."  Huh?  What moron doesn't understand what thirty-eight means?  Or 38 for that matter.  Pick one or the other and stick with it.  It's not too hard.

3.  Verbiage.  Case in point:  "They acquired the greatest post-season pitcher in baseball today in the person of Cliff Lee."  Hmm.  How about, "They acquired Cliff Lee, the greatest post-season pitcher in baseball today."  When you are facing strict page limits, lots of facts, and lots of arguments, then every character counts.  Plus, less is more.  The same goes for this whole motion.  The reason I would rule against this guy as a judge is because he's trying to be cute.  The whole thing can be written in one paragraph:

This Court has presently scheduled a case management conference for October 27, 2010, at 1 pm CDT.  As a life-long fan of the Texas Rangers, who are representing the American League in the World Series, counsel arranged to attend the first game of the World Series in San Francisco without realizing the conflicting time with the Court's scheduled case management conference.  See Declaration of Counsel.  Counsel is mindful of the Court's burdened docket; canceling the current travel arrangements, however, would impose a substantial financial burden on Counsel.  Id.   Therefore, Counsel respectfully requests that the Court grant this unopposed motion to reschedule the case management conference in this matter. 

Of course, who knows what the motion would look like if it were filed in the Northern District.

Me Fail Typing? That’s Unpossible

Mrs. Werner, the gradeschool keyboarding nazi-marm of my youth, used to tell us, “You are entering the computer age. The future for you is exciting and unknowable, but the one thing we do know is that you will all need to become skilled typists.” ¹

She uttered these and other prophetic threats (“if you do not know how to format a business letter you will never find a job, your parents will die, and you will have to beg for your food”) as she paced the rows of circi-1989 IBM computers, correcting students’ posture, pointing, pecking, and giggling, and good moods. She wore white nursey soft-soled shoes, and I still remember how it felt to realize she had slipped up from behind to scrutinize me. Hell. It felt like hell.

The hell didn’t just come from Mrs. Werner’s stealth. It also came from ridiculous rules that make up a grade school keyboarding class. Rules like, “strike the ‘Z’ only with the little finger on your left hand,” “use five spaces intent the first line of each paragraph,” and most annoyingly to me, rigorous standards for the number of spaces after each sentence. Mrs. Werner said two. My instinct, gut, and stubbornness said one, two, ten, it doesn’t make a difference. It’s a space, right? What does two accomplish that one does not? And let’s face it: what is so horrible about ten that doesn’t apply to two? It’s messy? Thoughts are messy! Keyboarding is messy! I’m nine years old for heaven’s sake! As you might predict, she beat it out of me in the end, but it took longer for the itch to go away: what the hell is really so wrong with one space?

I admit that the debate over whether a sentence should be followed by one space or two may seem petty. Even if petty however, it is a debate I lost once in elementary school when Mrs. Werner broke me, and it’s a debate I lost again tonight when the internets convinced me to go back to the heathen ways of my nine-year-old self.

That’s right folks, it looks like I’ve been lost, saved, and then saved again. Tonight, I asked Google to how to make Microsoft Word stop “correcting” the spaces after my sentences when I copy and paste. Mrs. Werner had made me into a double-tap the spacebar kind of fellow, and it bothered me that Word wasn’t adapting. But instead of a handy Word shortcut, what Google gave me was an internet assault on my pre-pubescent psychological imprinting. Two spaces, according to the world’s largest electronic brain, went out in 1947, right alongside sailor-top dresses and victory lipstick.

The rationale for double spacing, according to the internets, came from problems typesetting fixed-width fonts - problems longer relevant in the age of proportionally spaced computer-generated text. Unbeknownst to me, The Chicago Manual of Style began recommending in the mid-1970’s. So too with The Associated Press Style Book, The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, and The Gregg Reference Manual. The MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers appears to poo-poo two spaces as well, because although it states that two spaces are permissible, all its examples are rendered with only one.

Of course I know I can write my damn sentences however I want – that part of my nine-year-old spirit survives. But what about all those judges, partners, and slightly too big for their britches junior associates who will soon preside over me in professional judgment?

With my deepest apologies to Mrs. Werner, and not without a fearful peek over my shoulder, I accede. I am back to one space.

___________________
¹ Or, "You are entering a world of pain."

Said Post

I've been in love with Mark Twain for a long time now.  In fact, if I didn't rely on The Simpsons or The Big Lebowski as tools of communication, I'm sure I would use Twain.  This is just an excuse for introducing one of his most brilliant essays titled "Ye Sentimental Law Student."  Please take the five minutes to read it.  Best line?

And about said sun, and the said cluds, and the said mountains, and over the plain and the river aforesaid, there floats a purple glory--a yellow mist--as airy and beautiful as the  bridal veil of a princess, about to be wedded according to the rites and ceremonies pertaining to, and established by, the laws or edicts of the kingdom or principality wherein she doth reside, and whereof she hath been and doth continue to be, a lawful sovereign or subject.

When it comes to writing, our profession does not really have the best record in history.  On top of that, most public schools in California have stopped teaching grammar and other basics of the English language.  Pile on top of all of this various technological advancements that are destroying language as we know it.  But hyperbole aside, beginning with law school and continuing through practice, I've learned effective writing in two distinct ways.  The first is simply learning the lessons that used to be taught in grammar school.  See e.g., Brian Garner.  The second is learning to ignore all my prejudices and stereotypes about legal writing.  And as history has taught us, getting people to disregard their prejudices is one of the easiest tasks performed. 

2010 Banned Words

Happy New Year, everybody. It is December 31st, which means (like every December 31st since 1975) Lake Superior State University has released what is now its 35th annual List of Words Banished from the Queen's English for Mis-use, Over-use and General Uselessness. You can find the list here.

This year's list doesn't thrill me as much as last year's did, though I do have three observations.

First, I agree that most of the listed words are annoying (e.g., "tweet.," "chillaxin'," or "friend" as a verb) but that doesn't mean they are useless or overused. All of those words are irritating, but not banish-worthy. If someone says "I friended so-and-so," we all know they're talking about facebook. No misuse or uselessness there.

Others from the list, however, are right on point. "Czar" for example. Everyone who isn't talking about Russia should just stop using it. Right now. Ditto "teachable moment." I can't stand that phrase any more than the good folks at Lake Superior State University -- it's condescending, pseudo-philosophical, and just . . . yuck. I wish it would go away. What's wrong with "lesson"? Lastly, (*cough* Armen *cough*) I see that I have been vindicated with respect to "these economic times."

Third, there are a couple words on the list that I think are perfectly useful. "App" is one. So, probably, is "sexting." I mean, it really gets the point across, isn't prone to misuse, and if it's over-used, well, that may say more about our culture than it does about our language.

Finally, here are a few words and phrases I feel should be on the list, but didn't make it.

1. "Pragmatic." Ugh. This is a high-nosed person's way of claiming to be blue collar. They could just say "realistic" but that word is too proletariat, too common, and creates a risk that people actually will think the person is common. "Pragmatic" is the verbal prius of American English, the goldfish of pets, and the Joe Lieberman of the republican party.
2. "It's all good." The only time people use this phrase is when something isn't good.
3. "Douche." It's been repeated to oblivion, thanks largely to all the douches out there. We need a new word or phrase for this idea. I'll open the comments by inviting your to imbed your suggestions in derogatory sentences directed at me. They're inevitable, so we might as well make it productive.

Setting all that aside for a moment, though: Happy 2010 everybody!

Prodigal y Daughter

From the Volokh Conspiracy, via google alerts and an anonymous tipster:

Congratulations to Recent Boalt Hall [g]raduate Carolyn Zabrycki, whose student article (Toward a Definition of "Testimonial": How Autopsy Reports Do Not Embody the Qualities of a Testimonial Statement, 96 Cal. L. Rev. 1093 (2008)) was cited three times -- and seemingly significantly relied on -- by Justice Kennedy's dissent in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (pdf).

Congratulations, indeed!

Ninth Circuit Going to the Liu?

Law students generally don't get a chance to see the Recorder, so I thought I'd point out an article that may be of interest (it is available online too, but for subscribers only [EDIT: Patrick provides a link]). The Ninth Circuit currently has two vacancies--one seat transplanted from the D.C. Circuit (which is considered a "Calfornia slot"), and a second that is actually a disputed seat between California and Idaho.

So whose name is the first brought up by the Recorder as a "likely aspirant" for the vacancy? None other than Boalt's own Goodwin Liu. Could Prof. Liu really become a Ninth Circuit judge at the tender age of 38? I don't think anyone doubts his intellectual ability, and he certainly has the credentials. Having been in a seminar of his a few years back, I can vouch for his intellectual curiosity, willingness to countenance all sides of a debate, and a patient temperament well suited to the judiciary (he would be a welcome balance to fiery personalities like Kozinski or Reinhardt).

This begs the question, though, as to whether he could be confirmed. It is not just that Prof. Liu has very progressive views on controversial topics (including race and education)--it's that he has written widely on these views, and has often been quoted in newspapers, legal publications and on television. He also testified against the confirmation of Justice Alito. While I believe Prof. Liu would be a cautious and thoughtful judge, it is easy to imagine conservatives making an example out of someone with his track record and paper trail.

Which is why, if Liu truly does want to be a judge, now may be the time to go for it. Despite (or maybe because of) the current economic climate, Democrats' political capital will never be higher, and so now would seem to be Liu's best chance for confirmation. Not to mention that if he becomes a judge in the next couple years, his government pension will kick in when he is only in his mid-fifties.

The Recorder does point out that current district court judges are the most likely to be appointed, so it is difficult to say at this point whether Liu truly is a potential candidate. Irregardless, I hope Liu stays at Boalt, and all the better if it is in the same role as Prof./Judge Fletcher.

What About the 1L's?

This thread is highly related to the one immediately below, but probably worth keeping distinct. It solicits alumni who are on or have an inside angle with their firm's hiring committee, and asks: what about the 1L's? How, if at all, do you think your firm will adjust its hiring plan for this fall? How do you think 2009's 2L applicants to your firm will fare in comparison to 2L's from 2008?

There is a lot of gloom-and-doom information out there, and the last six months on ATL and related sites have seen an incredible development of what I suppose is called "conventional wisdom." While conventional wisdom (a phrase which may or may not be an oxymoron) is useful, I'd like to add something concrete to the mountains of speculation, but tugging on the coats of our alumni for a moment.

I think alumi thoughts would be particularly helpful to the class of 2011. The 1L's have been through a lot in the last year: twelve months ago they were still deciding to go to law school, six months ago they were figuring out what a "holding" is and whether they should join a journal, two months ago they were in full-panic mode for Spring OCIP and PIPS Day. Understandably, for each of these decisions they relied heavily on others' advice.

Fall OCIP is a similarly monumental and advice-driven affair. It's close enough that at least some firms must be thinking about their needs -- if you have the ability, please consider giving some much-needed context to the class of 2011's next staggering and totally foreign decision.

English Snarks Misfounded?

The comments of a recent post about English suffering from AIM and text messaging got me thinking... The English language doesn't suffer by techno-shorthand at all; it becomes improved by it. Language is organic, and as societal needs require lingual evolution, language can adapt.

That's why I usually stay silent when people on this blog bitch about incorrect grammar (my need for conformity and acceptance outweigh my desire to fight). What makes grammar correct? Unlike other standard setting bodies (IEEE, ICANN, ISO and SAE come to mind), English doesn't have a group of people that decide right or wrong. Instead, something becomes "right" when the majority of the English-speaking society decides it's right.

The process usually goes like this:

1. A guy mispronounces a word while drunk at a party. His designated driver buddy hears it and tucks it away in his memory. 
   
2. The buddy uses it accidentally in front of a group of friends at the gym. 
   
3. The friends in turn use it, and eventually someone posts it in their facebook status (it has graduated to "obscure localized slang" at this point). 
   
4. Someone creates a really popular facebook group, or starts an internet meme involving the word (it has now just become "regular slang").
   
5. Celebrities around the world are using the word. 50 Cent dropped the term in his new song. People playing XBOX Live scream it at each other. Axe Body Spray uses it in commercials (it has now become "accepted slang").
   
6. The word gets uncool... everyone knows what it means, but no one uses it anymore (the term is now "old slang").
   
7. A really square, white, old, male politician uses the term (he's probably Republican) when railing against a new piece of progressive legislation. 98% of the population chuckles to themselves because of how "2006" the term is. The other 2% of the population (the ones with all the money) realize that a new word has been invented right under their noses; they panic and make every attempt possible to use the word, lest they be the last ones to use it. Jack Donaghy claims to have invented it. The pope uses it in his "bless the world, but curse abortion" New Years prayer.
   

I think (though I'm just guessing) the new word has become an accepted part of the English language between steps 4 and 5. Other people may put it elsewhere. The point is, English modifies itself (or we modify it) to best suit our current needs. To claim that English is harmed by changing grammar usage is to desperately grasp on to the standards of yesterday. The irony is that you never hear people bitch about the English of last Tuesday (a few yesterdays ago)... it's why no one cares that "color" no longer has a "u" in it, or that people say "who" instead of "whom". So when people complain about whether something "begs the question", join the rest of us silently snickering at how these people still care about the fossils of the English language, but don't say anything out loud, because being cool requires fitting in.

New Space Deathmatch: AALJ v. BTLJ

Please note: this thread is not intended as an attack on AALJ, identity journals, Asian American jurisprudence, or anyone else. Nor does it mean to question any students’ work or dedication. As it points out, fewer citations are a consequence of focusing on an under-served topic. AALJ was chosen solely because it has fewer members than BTLJ and because it publishes annually—which arguably requires less working space (though not necessarily less work) for source collecting and article editing.

---

The second in my series examining winners and losers of the Boalt Hall space reconfiguration.

Winner: Asian American Law Journal
The new basement has an egalitarian design, with each journal allocated a nearly identical space. (Four journal offices are slightly larger.) Having all journals together promotes collaboration and fosters an esprit de corps among journals. It also allows efficient common areas, such as the kitchen and conference room. For smaller journals like AALJ, the new offices place them centrally within the heart of student organizations; proximity to larger journals also lets them borrow or share resources--whether in terms of editing tips or paper clips.

Loser: Berkeley Technology Law Journal
Intellectual property may be Berkeley's specialty, but BTLJ--like Rodney Dangerfield--don't get no respect. A quick look at the numbers shows why.

	Asian American Law Journal	Berkeley Technology Law Journal
Issues Per Year	1	4
Pages Per Year	282	1696

---

Editors	18	30
Asst./Assoc. Editors	2	18
Members	17*	45
Total Students	37	93

---

Citations: Academic**	326	2145
Citations: Case	2	45
Rank: Specialized	137th	1st
Rank: All	289th	26th

* Including 5 "semester members"
** Citations and rankings for student-edited journals here. "Specialized" includes all disciplines.

Now, one can argue that the last section (academic impact) should be disregarded. After all, IP is an established area of law, and journals like AALJ were founded to promote scholarship in an under-served discipline. (Actually, so was BTLJ, originally.) And a parent should love all her children equally--not just the ones who get top grades.

But still. Roughly speaking, BTLJ has four times the output of AALJ, and three times the membership. (Actual student participation may be higher, since BTLJ has strict rules regarding the hours required for masthead credit.) Academic reputation aside, it deserves at least twice the amount of office. Or to put it another way: if AALJ is 1/4th the size of BTLJ, why does it get 80% of BTLJ's space?

This is the demerit of the basement's egalitarian design: large successful journals are punished, and small, struggling journals are rewarded. Taken together, BTLJ, ELQ, and BJIL probably account for the majority of journal work at Boalt (in terms of membership and output), but receive very little space. Instead, most journal space is allocated to small, infrequently publishing groups. Ultimately, the basement space's egalitarian design has deeply disproportionate effects.

Don't Say This

I was listening to Hannity on the ride in this morning (hey, I gotta get my laughs somewhere), and he and his guest, Minnesota people-hater Representative Michele Bachmann (of "we should investigate all Congressional Democrats for anti-American activity" fame) were discussing the practices of waterboarding and denying prisoners Constitutional rights, and the implications of them. Specifically that because of them, we haven't been attacked by terrorists since Sept., 2001.

There are two purely logical mistakes with this statement (which may or may not be the same depending on your brand of argumentation theory). I've heard friends that are quite bright repeat this argument, so I don't know if they aren't thinking through it or what, so today I begin my one-man campaign to bring the world to its senses.

The first error is causal. While it is possible that treating the prisoners at Gitmo the way we have may have played a role in preventing a future attack, it is equally (or perhaps more) possible that a future attack just wasn't planned in the first place. So the cause of the lack of attack could have been the torture, but in the event that there wasn't ever going to be a future attack, the torture didn't cause anything (except torture). I suspect that if interrogating prisoners at gitmo did prevent an attack, we would have heard about it (edit: in the form of a concrete, specific example), since the amount of political street cred that would have resulted would be the equivalent of winning a dance-off against Robert Muraine. The fancy Latin term for this sort of fallacy is cum hoc ergo propter hoc: just because A and B happen doesn't mean that A caused B.

The second error is effectual. While denying Habeus Corpus may help in preventing attacks, it's logically incorrect to say (without proof) that the lack of an attack was an effect of the ins, outs, and what-have-yous of Gitmo. It's convenient to say that it was an effect of torture, but that doesn't make it correct. It could have been the effect of any number of things, substantial or not. We haven't had an attack since Obama was elected president... could this be an effect of his devilishly handsome good looks? Could it be the result of the literally pope-worthy Reuben I made last night? The Romans called this post hoc ergo propter hoc: just because A happens and then B happens doesn't mean that B was an effect of A.

Anyway, if you hear someone say that Bush may have shredded the Constitution, but at least he kept us safe, just recount the tale of the glorious pastrami-stacked, sauerkraut-stacked goodness I consumed last evening, and how it may or may not be the cause of my impending heart attack.

It's that Time of the Year Again (oops!)

I sense imminent roasting in the comments, but what can I say? I'm a word-lover. Better to be roasted for being a nerd than for any of my other unseemly qualities.

This post is inspired by the fine ladies and gentlemen at Lake Superior State University, who have released their annual List of Words to Be Banished from the Queen's English for Mis-use, Over-use and General Uselessness. I enjoyed their most recent offering, just like I enjoyed the 2008 list last year. Here is what they have to say (or, more specifically, what they have to not say) for 2009:

• Green (pertaining to environmental conscientiousness)
  
• Carbon footprint or carbon offsetting
  
• Maverick
  
• First dude
  
• Bailout
  
• Wall Street/Main Street
  
• Monkey
  
• <3*>
• Icon or iconic
  
• Game changer
  
• Staycation
  
• Desperate search
  
• Not so much
  
• Winner of five nominations
  
• It's that time of year again
  

Lake Superior's website includes detailed and humorous rationales for banishment, so if you are confused you can find an explanation there.

I also have offerings of my own. They are not as commonplace (and and probably not as egregious), but my position is that these babies can be cast right on out with the bath-water listed above:

• Completely inconsequential (this is redundant)
  
• Given the current state of the economy (okay, okay, this one may be debatable)
  
• Entered into a contractual relation (what's so wrong with just saying, "contracted," Armen?)
  
• Impression (one makes an impression when stepping on soft dirt; when imitating another, one makes an "impersonation." So, to say, "let me show you my my impression of so-and-so" is nonsense)http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
  
• Secret confession (it's either a secret, or a confession)
  
• Czar (as in "druz czar." Our government officials already have titles -- why borrow from Russia?)
  
• Bisons (the plural of buffalo is still "bison." Ahem)
  
• It's like X on steroids (to say this rarely makes sense, unless X really is on steroids . . . in which case it's not "like" X is on steroids at all)
  
• Hype (I was wrong. See ) (this word is shorthand for "hyperbole," not some sort of nebulous enthusiasm, so, it should be used when hyperbole is present)
  
• In the X context (a sure sign someone is making things more complex than necessary)

Lastly, and in order to end on a positive note, here are a few words I discovered or re-discovered this year, all of which have brought a smile to my face. (Word-loving nerd, remember?) I have listed definitions from the OED, and then explained why I find the particular word so damn lovable:

Dandle, v.

• To move (a child, etc.) lightly up and down in the arms or on the knee; to move (anything) up and down playfully in the hand.
  
• What is not to like about "dandle"? It is one of those fine English words that suggests repetition by ending in “le” (compare “spark” to “sparkle”), it is rare yet has an air of familiarity about it, and it is as loving and innocent a word as there could be.

Pickle, n. and adj.

• "A rod in pickle" (and variants): a punishment kept in reserve, ready to be inflicted when required.
  
• Some kind of pointed weapon.
  
• A single grain or particle of sand, dust, etc. A pellet.
  
• To pick in a small way, or a little at a time; to peck, nibble; to eat sparingly or delicately.
  
• To treat or alter (a painting) so as to pass it off as an old master.
  
• Who knew it meant so many things? Not me. Yet every definition seems to fit!

Pontificate, v.

• To speak in a dogmatic or pompous manner; (also occas.) to behave in an arrogant or high-handed way.
  
• I like this verb, because it comes from a noun meaning the office of high priest. Zing!
  

Besotted, a.

• Intellectually or morally stupefied or blinded.
  
• Been there. Still there.

Retroworter, n.

• The German word for ‘palindrome’ (which is a word that is spelled the same backward or forward, like ‘level’).
  
• Proof that the Germans are more clever than the English: retroworter is a palindrome, too.

Lascivious, a.

• Inclined to lust, lewd, wanton.
  
• I especially like the sound of the phrase, "lascivious intent," which is surely sufficient mens rea for any criminal offense. Just walking around with lascivious intent invites liability -- one misstep and you're screwed.
  

Crapulence, n.

• Excessive indulgence, or the sickness resulting from same.
  
• Here is what Montgomery Burns, Springfield's incompetently evil tycoon said to the police after he had been shot: "With Smithers out of the way, I was free to wallow in my own crapulence."

Fractious, a.

• Refractory, unruly; now chiefly, cross, fretful, peevish; esp. of children.
  
• The default psychological state at Nuts & Boalts.

Happy 2009, everyone!

* This is supposed to be the emoticon for a heart (less than sign + the numeral 3). Google blogger thinks it is a broken html tag, and keeps "correcting" it for me -- that's why it doesn't look right. Grr.

[Updated January 1 by Patrick to reflect his wrong-ness.]

Happy Thanksgiving!

Gobble Gobble Gobble.

Sunday Lexico-Neuroticism

When discussion of last week's post began drawing from Wikipedia, that fickle forum of boneheads and blowhards, I bowed out.

Then I remembered Sketchy Citation #13, from my criminal law casebook. I realized that maybe I was being cocky and wrong; maybe and Wiki-people aren't all blowhards after all. After all, one can only assume my casebook's rather famous author ordered his sources according to the weight and relevance he assigned them.

This post makes two invitations. You may attempt to convince me to not swear off Wikipedia, notwithstanding its contributors' blatant, sneering ignorance about Hobson, Hobbes, and choosing (which I have attempted to correct, to no avail). Or, you may identify at least three usage errors in the following passage from then-Professor (yes, Professor) Obama's Fall 2002 Constitutional Law III exam (thank you, Armen):

The Pleasant Administration has garnered much of the credit for the mall's success, since it was the Administration that put together the public-private parternership that got the project off the ground. To jump start the development, the city purchased the site five years ago and made it development-ready through the issuance of a general obligation bond, to be paid back out of the city's tax revenues over twenty-five years. Then, after it was unable to sell the property to a developer because of the economic risks involved, the city entered into an agreement with Mogul Development Corporation, whereby [list] . . . .

There is a fourth issue with the quote. I confess that the fourth issue is really a pet peeve and not a proper error, but I'll buy beer and tequila for anyone who shares my sentiments.

Sunday Lexico-Neuroticism

Welcome to installment number two of the Sunday Lexico-Neuroticism series. This week's cringe is induced (actually, more like inadvertently approved) by Judge Patel, of our very own Northern District of California:

The proper focus is upon the detention faced by the petitioner and whether the same is a due process violation, not whether petitioner is likely to succeed in his appeals. A contrary rule would punish the petitioner if he chooses to permissibly appeal the decisions made by the IJ or the BIA. This Hobbesian choice, whereby petitioner must “choose” to stay detained indefinitely if he wishes to appeal an erroneous decision or accede to the IJ's determination and depart his adopted home, violates due process guarantees. Singh v. Sepulveda, WL 2242215 (N.D. Cal. May 29, 2008).

Unlike "concerted," this one is pretty glaring.  Personally, it really grates on the ol' nerves; it's like last spring's "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" advertising -- after the first sighting, you begin to see its twisted little face everywhere.  Which means that if this particular barbarism didn't get under your skin before this post, well, it probably does now.  

If the answer hasn't been disclosed on Monday, I'll share it with you.

Massive exception:  the foregoing is unlikely to apply to those of you who will willfully enter that 9th level of hell tomorrow Tuesday morning -- you don't have the capacity for a single new fact, nor, I venture, could you be an iota more tightly wired.

I might have been tempted to blurt some inspiring remark, but frankly, the whole affair looks too damn awful.  When the dust settles, as we Idaho Vandals are given to say, "Win or lose, there's always booze."

Sunday Lexico-Neuroticism

Wandering the N&B archives recently, I tripped over Isaac Zaur's weekly "Sunday Literary-ism" posts.  Click here and scroll down -- they are a pleasure.  For the rest of this summer (and perhaps beyond) I will attempt to follow in his footsteps with my own weekly offering.

Mine, however, shall spotlight abuses of the English language, perpetrated in the course of paid practice, by justices, judges, or lawyers. Like adultery, foot-funk, and alcoholic fathers, the first step in overcoming slovenly legal prose is to acknowledge and learn from its presence.  I'm not demanding you change your own usage in light of these posts, but my guess is that once you think about it, you'll want to.

To keep me on my toes, I will limit myself to atrocities I have encountered in the seven days immediately preceding the post. To keep you on your toes, I will not share what is wrong with the quoted passage.  And I promise, there is something wrong; this isn't 'Nam, this is language. There are rules.

This week's cringe is brought to you by Justice Rehnquist, of the United States Supreme Court:

[Joeseph] Dacies made a concerted effort to speak with people who were familiar with competent black bricklayers and then hired a large number of black bricklayers. Furnco Constr. Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 581 n.9 (1978).

Help Me Help Another Boaltie See the Light

Two threads below have generated a "spirited" email exchange, in which only one party can prevail.

Please, vindicate me:

1. "Her California [ . . . ] was suspended after she was caught talking on the phone while driving."

a) driver license
b) drivers license
c) driver's license
d) drivers' license

2. "On top of everything else, the whiners demanded [ . . . ] to the tune of $7-10 million."

a) attorney fees
b) attorneys fees
c) attorney's fees
d) attorneys' fees

(Apologies to the extent this reads like a bar question. But at least this time the answer is listed.)

Crossing Media

For those of you with Gmail, you know that Gchat has a feature where you can list your status along with an "away message." For a long time, I've been noticing people using that space to mimic Facebook's "status" feature where you use the third person to describe what you are doing, e.g., [Name] "is eating 64 slices of American cheese." A few days ago I decided to be passive aggressive about it. In my own Gmail away message, I wrote the following:

Folks, gmail is not facebook. Please don't use this away message space as your facebook status crap. Rule 1: Message cannot begin with any form of the verb "to be."

The response was overwhelming. Even as I type, I see messages that say, "is trying to piss off Armen." "Armen is a loser." "To be." "is not a fan of Armen's message." Etc. I stand by my assertion. That space is for proper away messages, a la, those you find on AIM. Maybe I'm too old school, maybe everyone is a huge Bob Dole fan, but I can't stand people crossing a feature from one medium with that of another.

You have Rule 1, what's next?

Question Begging, Et Alii

Twice today I have heard abuse of the phrase, "It begs the question . . . "

ARRRRGGGHHHH!!!!

Misuse of that phrase is a pet target of my uptight side, right up there with hearing "milk" pronounced as "melk" and "height" as "heighth," as well as overuse of the semi-colon and legal latin, conjunctive use of "thus," use of "complicated" in place of "complex," "creative" instead of "imaginative" and . . . well, the list is long and admittedly arbitrary. (And all that stuff is probably only marginally more irritating than hearing someone gripe about grammar.)

I'll spare you exposition of my personal quirks, and instead open the forum for what may be important to only the very dorky and uncool (like me): if you were grammar police for a day, were where would you strike first?