English Grammar and Usage

English m*****f***** do you speak it?

How much English do you have to be able to speak in order to hold elected office? I don’t know, but apparently justices in Arizona think they know it when they hear it.

Continuing Arizona’s quest to become the most racist state in the Union, the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed a ruling that prevented Alejandrina Cabrera from running for a city council seat because she doesn’t speak English proficiently.

But we can’t just “blame whitey” for this one. Here we’ve got a Southwestern case of Latino-on-Latino crime.

Well, you know what they say: when in ‘Zona, do as the xenophobes do…

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Arizona Supreme Court Upholds Discrimination Against People Who Can’t Speak English”

Prosecutable hate speech in 17th-century Massachusetts included calling people “dogs,” “rogues” and even “queens” (though the last referred to prostitution); magistrates took serious umbrage at being labeled “poopes” (“dolts”).

John McWhorter, the noted linguist, in his New York Times review this past weekend of Speaking American: A History of English in the United States.

(Additional fun facts about language and the law — specifically, facts about statutes criminalizing oral sex — after the jump.)

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Fun Fact of the Day: Talk Dirty to Me”

Welcome to the latest edition of Above the Law’s Grammer Pole of the Weak, a column where we turn questions of legal writing and English grammar and usage over to our readers for discussion and debate.

Last week, we learned that 59% of our readers would never use “their” in the place of “his or her” when referring to a gender-neutral singular noun. After all, using “their” might sound better, but that certainly doesn’t make it the right word choice.

And that brings us to the topic of this week’s Grammer Pole, which came to me while I was listening to Metallica yesterday afternoon. Guys in heavy metal bands know when to use “whom,” so why don’t lawyers? Because sometimes, it just sounds better when you’re wrong….

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Grammer Pole of the Weak: For ‘Who’ the Bell Tolls?”

Welcome to the latest edition of Above the Law’s Grammer Pole of the Weak, a column where we turn questions of legal writing and English grammar and usage over to our readers for discussion and debate.

Last week, we found out that our readers, 81% of them, in fact, couldn’t care less about being polite (who knew?). Grammatically speaking, they don’t think that a single person can be “diverse.” You hear that, law firms? If you’re looking for minority applicants, cut the pleasantries and say so.

This week, we’ll be turning to a question that’s been debated through the ages. We’ve dealt with gender-neutral language in the past, but today we’re turning it up a notch. When using gender-neutral singular nouns, is it acceptable to use “their” as a singular pronoun later on in the sentence?

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Grammer Pole of the Weak: When Did ‘Their’ Start Replacing ‘His or Her’?”

In Grammer Pole of the Weak, we typically tackle issues of English grammar and usage, as well as questions of style (in terms of legal writing, not fashion). Last week, we delved into the fun topic of em-dash spacing, and learned that our readers are essentially deadlocked on whether to use a space before and after an em dash. In the end, using spaces prevailed by a margin as narrow as Mitt Romney’s Iowa caucus victory.

Our latest grammar poll pertains to usage, but it has a political component to it as well. It touches on hot-button issues like affirmative action and racial preferences, about which our readers have passionate opinions.

The question, in a nutshell: What does it mean to be a “diverse” individual?

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Grammer Pole of the Weak: The Meaning of ‘Diversity’”

Welcome to the latest edition of Above the Law’s Grammer Pole of the Weak, a column where we turn questions of legal writing and English grammar and usage over to our readers for discussion and debate.

Last week, we discovered that our readers’ preference for using pled over pleaded as the past tense of the verb plead hasn’t changed too drastically since 2008: 57% of lawyers still prefer to use pled. So much for members of this profession being sticklers for rules, grammatical or otherwise, eh?

This week, we’ll be turning to a question of spacing. We’ve already dealt with sentence spacing — specifically, whether one space or two should be used between sentences — but today, we’re going to take a look at the em dash. Should you be using a space before and after an em dash?

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Grammer Pole of the Weak: Em Dash Spacing”

Welcome to the latest edition of Above the Law’s Grammer Pole of the Weak, a column where we turn questions of legal writing and English grammar and usage over to our readers for discussion and debate.

Last week, we found out that 75% of our readers thought using the word “like” to introduce a quotation would like, make the speaker sound like a Valley girl, despite its apparent linguistic usefulness.

This week, thanks to popular demand from our readers, we’ll be turning to a contested issue among lawyers. What is the preferred past tense form for the verb pleadpleaded or pled?

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Grammer Pole of the Weak: Pleaded v. Pled”

Welcome to the latest edition of Above the Law’s Grammer Pole of the Weak, a column where we turn questions of legal writing and English grammar and usage over to our readers for discussion and debate.

Last week, we discovered that roughly six percent of our readers use — and will continue using — the word “irregardless,” despite the fact that it isn’t a proper word. Please God, make it stop.

Speaking of God, that brings us to this week’s topic: because people are so easily offended, should lawyers strike the term “act of God” and use the phrase “act of nature” instead?

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Grammer Pole of the Weak: What Caused Your Claim, God or Nature?”

Welcome to the latest edition of Above the Law’s Grammer Pole of the Weak, a column where we turn questions of legal writing and English grammar and usage over to our readers for discussion and debate.

Last week’s vote was extremely close, but 51% of our readers thought that the Bluebook should be abolished. With the fall semester drawing to a close and brief deadlines approaching, we think that law students definitely had a hand in the outcome.

This week, we turn to a question of grammar. Have you been using the word “irregardless” instead of “regardless”?

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Grammer Pole of the Weak: That’s Irregardless…”

Page 3 of 71234567