4 ms·

Your last example is why reading the law is tricky and why we need both a push for plain language and a push to explain language that is necessarily very specif

Your last example is why reading the law is tricky and why we need both a push for plain language and a push to explain language that is necessarily very specific.

AlbertCory 4y ago
In general, yeah, but I have mixed feelings on that particular one. Claims wouldn't be much more understandable if they said: A chair, with four legs, a seat, and a back, and possibly other elements. A good explanation for obtuseness in legal language is: In normal writing, you're trying to be understood. In legal writing, you're trying to make it impossible to be misunderstood.
- watwut 4y ago
  imo, actually they would be more understandable. Because that sentence is using words everybody knows.
- inetknght 4y ago
  > In legal writing, you're trying to make it impossible to be misunderstood. I would argue that many legal documents have completely missed that mark.
- pas 4y ago
  there's no way around it. if you want to avoid getting misunderstood, misinterpreted, especially by in a somewhat adversarial setting, then you need to build a mental model that grasps what you want to communicate, and then spend the pages and ink to write it down. structural language, plenty of examples to narrow down possible points of false interpretations, etc. (at least 3+ examples for each thing, to have a quorum of examples that can break ties in case of opposing interpretations) obviously quantification is good, measurability is great, directionality is important (so then as you try to specify this abstract concept by its boundary in some mental space you can say what's inside and what's outside the boundary, which examples point in which direction ... so you can say things like "we mandate providing shelter for every resident" with a lot more precision, after all in no time someone would argue that it's a tautology, since "residents reside somewhere, which means they have an address, and therefore they already have shelter there".)

Your last example is why reading the law is tricky and why we need both a push for plain language and a push to explain language that is necessarily very specific.

AlbertCory 4y ago

In general, yeah, but I have mixed feelings on that particular one. Claims wouldn't be much more understandable if they said: A chair, with four legs, a seat, and a back, and possibly other elements. A good explanation for obtuseness in legal language is: In normal writing, you're trying to be understood. In legal writing, you're trying to make it impossible to be misunderstood.

watwut 4y ago
imo, actually they would be more understandable. Because that sentence is using words everybody knows.
inetknght 4y ago
> In legal writing, you're trying to make it impossible to be misunderstood. I would argue that many legal documents have completely missed that mark.
pas 4y ago
there's no way around it. if you want to avoid getting misunderstood, misinterpreted, especially by in a somewhat adversarial setting, then you need to build a mental model that grasps what you want to communicate, and then spend the pages and ink to write it down. structural language, plenty of examples to narrow down possible points of false interpretations, etc. (at least 3+ examples for each thing, to have a quorum of examples that can break ties in case of opposing interpretations) obviously quantification is good, measurability is great, directionality is important (so then as you try to specify this abstract concept by its boundary in some mental space you can say what's inside and what's outside the boundary, which examples point in which direction ... so you can say things like "we mandate providing shelter for every resident" with a lot more precision, after all in no time someone would argue that it's a tautology, since "residents reside somewhere, which means they have an address, and therefore they already have shelter there".)