On Legalese & Plain Rice

        

           Reaction papers are uncanny things for they are essays, alright, but they have an excuse for their being; that is, one’s reaction on paper! And, for the love of connections or relations, reactions not spontaneous enough would be artificial or, in a more rustic term, ‘plastic’. Its truth lies in its spontaneity, like responding a glib “Yes” to your girlfriend’s query about her beauty. (A 2-second pause would make you her ex-boyfriend.) In like manner, a thoroughly planned Reaction Paper is (almost) an oxymoron like a manufactured antique made (in) you know where. 

Nostalgia. The earliest account I know when it comes to the defining of the word ‘simple’, is that of Euclid whose geometry is still being studied today. (To Russell's disgust.) Euclid has defined a point as that which has no parts, and that which has no parts is what being simple is. Fast forward to the 19th century, the British philosopher G.E. Moore made use of the same definition of the ‘simple' in relation to the meaning of the ‘good’. ‘Good’ is as simple as the color ‘red’ as the color red is no longer reducible to something else. To Moore’s dismay, to say ‘simple is simple' is tautologous as it does not really say anything new or worthwhile about the word being defined. In the rules of definition, “the definiendum (the word defined) should not be found in the definiens (the words used in defining). Simplicity is truly a complicated thing. To simplify involves a sophisticated mind. Perhaps you remember how your Math teacher scolded you when you turned in your final answers although they were not yet simplified?

Matter and Form. I agree with the project of simplifying, or, better, avoiding jargons in Law or in other disciplines, whenever possible. However, in avoiding them whenever we can, we claim that we understand them as this requires that we should be able to identify them before we can avoid them. 

I had the occasion of talking with Harry Potter fans, whose ‘Wingardium Leviosas” are impeccable. Magic SPELLS are like that. They take the correct words and the correct form to let the magic happen. To Alladin aficionados, it’s 'Open Sesame’, not ‘Sesame Open’, not even ‘Ze Zam’. Thoughts and their expressions must thoroughly be understood first before we can have the so-called ‘poetic license to deviate from common usage. To use the word ‘plain’ improperly would either express an insult, at least willfully, or show one’s ignorance of the nuances of the word. Plain English is (understandable) simple English, but a plain face is almost derogatory. It is not even neutral. “The same is true with the difference between lightning and the lightning-bug,” an American writer once said. For example, the word ‘nice’ deserves a history lecture for its use, especially if we would really like to understand how it turned out from “stupid” to the likeable “fine’ we know it to be today. 

Un-point. Words or languages in general are tools in expressing our thoughts. A learned individual will not deliberately use highfalutin words for the sake of just uttering them. Rather, they use words that capture their thoughts in order to express them given a particular situation. Would you rather use ‘fat’’ in describing your future mother-in-law or use “Rubenesque” to express a more fitting and cultured term? Remember what wise King Solomon said: “A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver.”

Words should not  primarily be regarded as “plain” or “complex”. No two words are equal. No two words are completely synonymous. To “give'' does not always mean to “donate”, although they share the Latin word ‘donum’ (gift) as root. 

To use plain English whenever possible is a challenge, not a ready-made excuse to avoid even our “legalese’’ no matter how medieval they sound. (Perhaps, by now, you already know why your future mother-in-law hates you? The simple answer is that you called her “fat”.)