LawProse Lessons

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 […]

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

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

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

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:

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

It’s vs. its In a 1988 review of my Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage — or, as it’s now called in its third edition, Garner’s Dictionary of Legal Usage — a generally effusive reviewer criticized me for including an entry on the possessive its as opposed to the contraction it’s. The comment seemed unfair at

What’s the difference between guarantee and guaranty? ANSWER: Guarantee, the broader and more common term, is both a verb and a noun. The narrower term, guaranty, today appears mostly in banking and other financial contexts; it seldom appears in nonlegal writing. Guarantee, vb. 1. To assure that a promise will be kept {the coach guaranteed

What are the rules for using the labels Jr., Sr., III, etc. in a name? Three traditional rules govern these labels (although often ignored in modern usage): 1. A son drops the Jr. label soon after his father dies — as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes did. But there are two exceptions to this rule. First,

ANSWER: It’s best without the th. An ordinal number indicates position in a series (e.g., first, second, fifteenth), and should not be used when writing a date. Any one of these forms is correct: May 29, 2013 (the American method); 29 May 2013 (the military or British method); or the 29th of May 2013 (acceptable

Why isn’t *subpoenae the plural of subpoena? In response to our last lesson on subpoenas duces tecum, many people asked: Why isn’t the plural *subpoenae duces tecum? Subpoena is a singular English noun — it was never a Latin noun. Rather, the English word subpoena derived from the Latin phrase sub poena, meaning “under penalty”

What’s the plural of subpoena duces tecum? ANSWER: Subpoenas duces tecum. This phrase — like any other containing a postpositive adjective — takes its plural on the noun at its beginning, the phrase’s “head.” Similar plurals include these: accounts payable accounts receivable acts malum in se agents provocateur ambassadors extraordinary annuities certain attorneys general bodies

What’s the plural form of attorney general? And what is the plural possessive?       In American English, attorneys general is the correct plural form. The British prefer attorney-generals (the Brits have long hyphenated the phrase). Generally, a compound noun made up of a noun and a postpositive adjective (one that follows its noun) is pluralized

      The prevalent form appears to be attorney’s fees (whether there is one attorney, two attorneys, or an entire firm involved). But attorneys’ fees is also acceptable — and preferred by some — if it’s clear that more than one attorney is charging for services. Although inelegant, attorney fees is becoming more common — presumably

The classic example posits the obvious difference between a photograph of Lord Snowdon and a photograph of Lord Snowdon’s. We know who’s in the first picture, but we can’t be sure about the second. In this example, the meaning turns on whether the possessive or nonpossessive form appears. The writer’s choice is straightforward, depending on

How do you form a possessive with a name that itself ends with a possessive –‘s, as with McDonald’s?       It’s common for a business’s name to be a proper single name in possessive form, as with McDonald’s, T.G.I. Friday’s, or Lloyd’s of London. Such names function as ordinary proper nouns despite their possessive appearance

What are the rules for possessives with gerunds, or preventing fused participles? As you doubtless know, verbs have two forms we call participles. The past participle usually ends in –ed. (Exceptions occur with irregular verbs, such as swim>swam>swum — the last being the past participle.) The verb form ending in –ing is called the present

Why do plural possessives cause so much trouble?       Much confusion surrounds plural possessives. Is it as simple as adding an apostrophe to the final –s? What if the plural noun doesn’t end in –s? How do you form a possessive for units of time? What about joint possessives? The list goes on. This confusion

What are the most common misuses of apostrophes? The apostrophe does three things. Its first two uses are straightforward: To indicate a possessive <the plaintiff’s brief>. To mark the omission of one or more characters, especially in a contraction, as with can’t for cannot, or ’99 for 1999. The third use is a little tricky

What is the proper use of were in the subjunctive mood? The subjunctive mood of the verb is a tricky one to explain. Would that it were not so [subjunctive mood], but it is [indicative mood]. In the Three Dog Night song “Joy to the World,” the lyrics use a subjunctive in “If I were [not was] the