jurist.
Part A: Generally.
In British English, this word is reserved for one who has made outstanding contributions to legal thought and legal literature. In American English, it is loosely applied to every judge of whatever level, and sometimes even to nonscholarly practitioners who are well respected.
Part B: For “juror.”
This is a surprising error. On the front page of the Oakland Tribune, a deck line states: “Group may recommend better pay for jurists.” The meaning of that statement isn’t clear until you read the body of the story: “The panel also is expected to recommend jurors — who are increasingly reluctant to serve on trials — be paid more money.” “Jury Changes Would Drop Requirement for Unanimity,” Oakland Trib., 30 Apr. 1996, at A1. Nowhere does the story mention judges’ pay.
For information about the Language-Change Index click here.
——————–
Quotation of the Day: “University people complain that the undergraduate cannot write ‘plain, straightforward English,’ but as soon as they begin to say what particularly they find amiss we hear of nothing but spelling mistakes or trifles of punctuation. . . . One seldom reads of the gross shortcomings one knows will be there, which matter so much more — the failure to construct sentences and paragraphs lucidly, the waste of words, the unnecessary adjectives, the uncomprehended and stale metaphors. . . . Hence the failure of speaker and hearer, writer and reader, to realize that words are passing between them with no meaning at all, or with meaning so false that only these poor devices conceal the falsity.” T.W.H. Holland, The Nature of English 3 (1967).
====================
