LawProse Lessons

Is e-mails a correct plural, or should it be e-mail messages? People are naturally drawn to linguistic analogizing: we prefer neat correspondences. Some people therefore insist that because mail is an uncountable mass noun, e-mail must logically be a mass noun as well — and that e-mails is therefore wrong. These precisians demand e-mail messages. …

LawProse Lesson #142: Is “e-mails” a correct plural, or should it be “e-mail messages”? Read More »

Should it be e-mail or email? Two weeks ago, the New York Times officially dropped the hyphen in e-mail because of “popular demand,” according to its editor for news presentation, Patrick LaForge. The Associated Press Stylebook changed its style to the unhyphenated email in 2011, but it retained the hyphen in sister terms such as …

LawProse Lesson #141: Should it be “e-mail” or “email”? Read More »

Which is correct: a Cardinals fan or a Cardinals’ fan? Last week’s lesson about the possessive form of Red Sox ended with this sentence: “We’ll know shortly, but don’t jinx them with poor usage (unless, of course, you’re a Cardinals fan).” Should that have been written as a possessive: a Cardinals’ fan? Preferably not. Here, …

LawProse Lesson #140: Should the phrase “a Cardinals fan” be attributive or possessive? Read More »

What is the possessive form of Red Sox? The rule for plural possessives is to pluralize first, then form the possessive {woman>women>women’s} {shoe>shoes>shoes’}. But what happens when you have a playfully respelled plural for a word such as socks? That is, Sox is already considered plural: we say “the Red Sox are in the World …

LawProse Lesson #139: What is the possessive form of Red Sox? Read More »

Why is ’til considered an error for the preposition till? Why can’t it be regarded as an abbreviation of until? That simply doesn’t reflect the history of the words. Till has been considered a perfectly good preposition in general English since about 1300. It first appeared in northern varieties of Old English around 800. Until, …

LawProse Lesson #138: Why is “’til” considered an error for the preposition “till”? Read More »

Which does educated English demand: I feel bad for you or I feel badly for you? ANSWER: I feel bad for you. Writers often make mistakes when they use verbs that do nothing more than connect the subject with a descriptive word in the predicate. Remember this rule: use an adjective, not an adverb, as …

LawProse Lesson #137: “Feel bad” or “Feel badly”? Read More »

Is good becoming an adverb? Are we losing well as an adverb? A descriptive linguist might well say so. And in the sweep of time—say, two centuries hence—it may well be that these sentences will be considered Standard English: “We played good.” “You did good.”      “I’m doing really good.” “I can’t write very good.” …

LawProse Lesson #136: Is “good” becoming an adverb? Are we losing “well” as an adverb? Read More »

Farther vs. further The best way to handle these terms (both comparative degrees of far) is to use farther literally and further figuratively.      Farther refers to physical distances {Timothy ran farther up the street than Susan} {From Dallas, it’s farther to Chicago than to St. Louis}. Further, on the other hand, refers to figurative …

LawProse Lesson #135: Farther vs. further Read More »

How should you punctuate around the common Latin abbreviations e.g., i.e., etc., and et al.? With e.g. (= for example) and i.e. (= that is), the usual convention in AmE is to precede it with a comma or a dash, and invariably to follow it with a comma {He trades in farm commodities, e.g., corn …

LawProse Lesson #134: Punctuating around “e.g.,” “i.e.,” “etc.,” and “et al.” Read More »

Should you write “Plaintiff,” “the Plaintiff,” or “the plaintiff”? Preferably none of the above. Ideally, you’d populate your sentences with real names — not party designations. Your legal writing will become clearer, and readers will more easily keep track of who’s who (assuming you’re a competent expositor).      In appellate practice, this common-sense recommendation is …

LawProse Lesson #133: Should you write “Plaintiff,” “the Plaintiff,” or “the plaintiff”? Read More »

What is the right way to use articles before abbreviations? EPA or the EPA? An HMO or a HMO? There is no single “right” answer to this question. Conventional usage prevails. EPA is more common than the EPA when it’s standing alone (more on this below). But HMO is very uncommon — as rare as …

LawProse Lesson #132: Using articles before abbreviations Read More »

When should you capitalize court? Capitalize court in legal documents in only four situations: 1.  When you’re referring to the United States Supreme Court {the Court’s opinion in Marbury v. Madison}. 2.  When you’re stating a court’s full name {the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit} {the Michigan Supreme Court}. 3.  When you’re referring …

LawProse Lesson #131: When should you capitalize “court”? Read More »

Is preventative lawyering a good thing?       No. But preventive lawyering might be. *Preventative is a dubious adjective with an unnecessary syllable. Careful writers and speakers don’t use it. Sources: Garner’s Dictionary of Legal Usage 706 (3d ed. 2011). Garner’s Modern American Usage 658 (3d ed. 2009). The Redbook § 12.3, at 302 (3d ed. …

LawProse Lesson #130: Is “preventative lawyering” a good thing? Read More »

Placement of only. The word only is probably misplaced more often than any other modifier in legal and nonlegal writing. Only emphasizes the word or phrase that comes immediately after it. So the more words separating only from its correct position, the more awkward and ambiguous the sentence. When it comes too early in the …

LawProse Lesson #129: Placement of “only” Read More »

Therefore vs. therefor.       Therefore is the common adverbial conjunction meaning “for that reason,” “consequently,” or “so.” It always states a conclusion when used correctly {the accident occurred at 8 a.m.; therefore rush-hour traffic was snarled for hours}. The stress is on the first syllable. Therefor (stress on the last syllable) means “for that” or …

LawProse Lesson #128: “Therefore” vs. “therefor”. Read More »

Wrongly suppressed that.       Although in many constructions it’s perfectly permissible — and even preferred — to omit that {the book I read last week}, the word is often useful and even necessary. We need it as a restrictive relative pronoun {the book that won a Pulitzer}; as a demonstrative adjective {that book is the …

LawProse Lesson #127: Underuse of “that” Read More »

That vs. which       We now come to an issue that has provoked swearing matches in recent months: how to choose between that and which as relative pronouns. Consider: Republicans oppose new taxes that are unnecessary. (Some taxes might be necessary.) Republicans oppose new taxes, which are unnecessary. (None, in their view, would ever be …

LawProse Lesson #126: “That” vs. “which” Read More »

One of those ______s who (or that): singular or plural verb?       Our last LawProse lesson ended this way: “My recommendation: don’t be one of those people who insist on not using that in reference to humans.” I told my colleagues: just wait — someone’s going to insist that it should be “one of those …

LawProse Lesson #125: “One of those who are” or “one of those who is”? Read More »

Is person that (as opposed to who) proper?       Is it permissible to say people that, or must you always say people who? One often hears language aficionados who proclaim that who is best for people, and that that, strictly speaking, is loose or even taboo as a relative pronoun referring to humans. They’re wrong: …

LawProse Lesson #124 Read More »

Confusing these terms is a persistent error in legal and other writing. Forego traditionally means “to go before; to precede in time or place.” But it’s most common in the participial forms foregone and, less often, foregoing.   Ex.:  The outcome was a foregone conclusion. Ex.:   In an effective brief, the discussion flows from the …

LawProse Lesson #123: Forego vs. forgo. Read More »