3 ms·

I think it's been replaced by "that", as in: "Upon the submission of the cause the appellant made a motion to amend its assignments of error. That motion is no

I think it's been replaced by "that", as in: "Upon the submission of the cause the appellant made a motion to amend its assignments of error. That motion is now granted."

puzzledobserver 3y ago
Also: Why does / did legal writing prefer the structurally complex multipart sentence in the original article to this simpler two sentence version? Is there some formal ambiguity in the two-sentence version which the one-sentence version does not have?
- randomcarbloke 3y ago
  on this subject does anyone have any texts that detail the formalities and intricacies of legalese? I have often found the writings of legal professionals especially compelling when I've encountered them informally in the wild (newspapers, articles etc) and would like to replicate it myself.
Sprocklem 3y ago
This notably differs from the example in OP by its position outside of the first sentence. AFAICT, your second sentence cannot function as a parenthetical like the example with "which motion".
- spondylosaurus 3y ago
  American English generally uses "that" for restrictive clauses and "which" for relative clauses. E.g.: > The local cafe that my dad loves has a lot of lunch options. > The local cafe, which my dad loves, has a lot of lunch options. But British English generally uses "which" for both: > The local cafe which my dad loves has a lot of lunch options. The "cannot function as a parenthetical" is essentially what a restrictive clause is, although of course the person you're replying to broke things into two sentences.
  - Sprocklem 3y ago
    Notably, the example given by GP also cannot function as a restrictive clause, since "that" is acting as a demonstrative rather than the head of a clause: *Upon the submission of the cause the appellant made a motion (to amend its assignments of error) that motion is now granted. The current ungrammaticality of the original example given in OP is due to the presence of "motion" within the wh-phrase (c.f., "Which motion is now granted?"), which does not have an equivalent construct for restrictive clauses using "that".

I think it's been replaced by "that", as in: "Upon the submission of the cause the appellant made a motion to amend its assignments of error. That motion is now granted."

puzzledobserver 3y ago

Also: Why does / did legal writing prefer the structurally complex multipart sentence in the original article to this simpler two sentence version? Is there some formal ambiguity in the two-sentence version which the one-sentence version does not have?

randomcarbloke 3y ago
on this subject does anyone have any texts that detail the formalities and intricacies of legalese? I have often found the writings of legal professionals especially compelling when I've encountered them informally in the wild (newspapers, articles etc) and would like to replicate it myself.

Sprocklem 3y ago

This notably differs from the example in OP by its position outside of the first sentence. AFAICT, your second sentence cannot function as a parenthetical like the example with "which motion".

spondylosaurus 3y ago
American English generally uses "that" for restrictive clauses and "which" for relative clauses. E.g.: > The local cafe that my dad loves has a lot of lunch options. > The local cafe, which my dad loves, has a lot of lunch options. But British English generally uses "which" for both: > The local cafe which my dad loves has a lot of lunch options. The "cannot function as a parenthetical" is essentially what a restrictive clause is, although of course the person you're replying to broke things into two sentences.
- Sprocklem 3y ago
  Notably, the example given by GP also cannot function as a restrictive clause, since "that" is acting as a demonstrative rather than the head of a clause: *Upon the submission of the cause the appellant made a motion (to amend its assignments of error) that motion is now granted. The current ungrammaticality of the original example given in OP is due to the presence of "motion" within the wh-phrase (c.f., "Which motion is now granted?"), which does not have an equivalent construct for restrictive clauses using "that".