8 ms·

Is legalese not just the result of trying to use English as a programming language? Any time I try to write English (or other natlang) precisely and unambiguous

• the_clarence 2y ago
  It's verbose english with a stubborn attitude against any kind of formatting. Maybe I'm part of the problem here. BRB.
• bruce511 2y ago
  Natural language is indeed ambiguous. Words tend to vary in meaning from time to time. So legal documents gave to precisely define a lot of terms, and Latin is also used (because meanings there dont change.) Take the phrase "Open Source" as an example. Us old folk ascribe specific meaning to that term - typically based on the legalese in Open Source licenses. However the next generation have imbued it with their own (various) definitions. This leads to endless back and forth. For example I recently pointed out that SQLite is Public Donain, not Open Source. (With predictable pushback.) Today, in other thread someone claimed "its not really open Source unless its in git, and on github". And the distinction between Free Software and Open Source is seldom understood. So yeah, legal documents are gard to parse because they can't take "common meaning" for granted.
  • mdaniel 2y ago
    > "its not really open Source unless its in git, and on github". Heh, mine is even more strict: to me, it's not really open source unless I can build it since if I cannot compile the project, I cannot change it for my needs and/or send those tested changes back upstream I have a second 2nd level "requirement" about packaging it in a sane distribution format, because I don't think any reasonable person wants to have a .desktop file that is $(cd /home/src/foo; npx run whatever "$@"). I'm looking at you, Chromium, since I can get it to build just fine but count the number of hand-rolled /usr/bin/install calls https://github.com/archlinuxarm/PKGBUILDs/blob/741f8edf84c7b79516716b124ccfd53e901cf0e7/extra/chromium/PKGBUILD#L308-L375 https://github.com/archlinuxarm/PKGBUILDs/blob/741f8edf84c7b... because evidently the $(make DESTDIR= install) is just kidding
  • Terr_ 2y ago
    Or like the old quip: "Free as in speech, not free as in beer."
  • Gigachad 2y ago
    Open source only became confusing because Richard stallman made it his life mission to try to redefine the meaning of free in a way that would confuse people for decades to come.
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    • liontwist 2y ago
      There is no open source without stallman. After decades of advocacy and organizing his ideas have been moderated for mainstream success. Work on big technical projects like Linux was also a strong signal for employers. For years now that signal has been a target to emulate so a. Lot of “open source” became FAANG resume building.
    • bruce511 2y ago
      Free Software predates Open Source, so that's not an ideal conflating. I get where you are coming from though. The choice of the word "Free" in "Free Software" isn't ideal because the word "Free" has multiple meanings. Most people (especially non-tech users) assume it means "no cost" rather than "unencumbered". So yes, it would have been simpler either a different name. Hindsight is perfect. That said Free Software is different to Open Source (although lots of tech folk conflate the two.) That aside, it doesn't stop people adding their own (incorrect) requirements or expectations, as seen elsewhere in this thread.
• mdaniel 2y ago
  Aside from the few proposals that I know of to literally use programming languages in laws, I have wondered if actually lowering the language expressiveness would help (e.g. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_English_Wikipedia https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_English_Wikipedia ) The thinking being that the less nuanced the vocabulary, the less ways it could be interpreted and thus one may not have to write so many laywerly guard phrases to artificially constrain "normal" vocabulary. It may very well run the risk of having to use a bazillion more cross-references as one builds up a "library" of word-subroutines, but still could be a net win But I guess I can navel-gaze all I like because for this specific domain, any change might as well be all the changes since there's no prayer
  • caseyohara 2y ago
    The US government has the Plain Language movement which is rewriting policy and legal documents in clear, plain language. The plainlanguage.gov site is an excellent all-around writing resource. I direct junior developers here when they are trying too hard to sound fancy when communicating technical concepts in documentation and design documents. Here are some great examples: https://www.plainlanguage.gov/examples/before-and-after/ambiguity/ https://www.plainlanguage.gov/examples/before-and-after/ambi... https://www.plainlanguage.gov/examples/before-and-after/monthly-due-date/ https://www.plainlanguage.gov/examples/before-and-after/mont... https://www.plainlanguage.gov/examples/before-and-after/use-less-water/ https://www.plainlanguage.gov/examples/before-and-after/use-...
    • mdaniel 2y ago
      > The Plain Writing Act of 2010 was signed on October 13, 2010. The law requires that federal agencies use clear government communication that the public can understand and use. well, no shit! that's amazing Thanks so much for bringing that to my attention, I'll try to see how I can incorporate those into my own process
    • kookamamie 2y ago
      [X] Good.
    • 2y ago
• bluepizza 2y ago
  It reminds me of the pre-symbolic mathematical notations where equations would be described in long paragraphs.
• gizmo686 2y ago
  I don't think so. Based on the article, the definition of legalese is a high prevalence of center-embedding. Center embedding is one of the most ambiguous ways to write sentences, so it does not make sense as a style of writing presisly.
  • cryptoz 2y ago
    That’s not the definition of legalese and I protest the focus of the article and study: that center embedding is seemingly the sole issue.
• devjab 2y ago
  In Denmark there is some part of legalese being the way it is because of what you talk about here. Legalese is essentially something you write for a “compiler”. Unlike a compiler, however, the legal system isn’t going to throw up and tell you that you are wrong when they interpret your legalese. Well I suppose it’s a little like JavaScript where it’ll continue and just replace bad parts with “any”. Which is bad if you intended a part of a contract to mean something very specific.
• palmfacehn 2y ago
  I expect there is a correlation between frequency of use and broadness of interpretation. Commonly used words may be more likely to mean multiple things. Words cul-de-sac'd in arcane contexts may be less likely to evolve in the popular sphere. When someone says: "That's so random", it isn't a commentary on determinism. There are many cases where adhering to a precise definition becomes problematic in popular discourse.
• akoboldfrying 2y ago
  Possibly, but here's a data point in the opposite direction: Learning mathematics, especially higher forms of mathematics. Before students can learn directly from symbolic representations like formulae, mathematics teachers must communicate mathematical ideas to them using natural language -- and with just a few iterations of correcting misunderstandings, this process somehow converges on the students having the same understanding of these abstract ideas. That is, natural language succeeds here in bootstrapping a more precise form of communication.
  • GrantMoyer 2y ago
    Mathematics can be unambiguously communicated because teachers are describing a system with only one or a few self consistent interpretations. Effectively, there's a natural error correction scheme built in (the state I've been described is invalid, so find the closest valid state and assume that). Note that even then, very many people struggle to communicate about math.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• godelski 2y ago
  On a side note, I find this interesting how accepting everyone here is that language is ambiguous. The conversations seem to drastically change when you start talking about LLMs. But this is exactly why I don't see them replacing programmers even if they didn't write shit code. Because like with law, you don't really even know what you're trying to describe until you start doing it. And then you gotta keep updating it and be thinking really hard about all your edge cases. Though for law, I think some ambiguity is beneficial. We should be going after the intent of the law, not the letter. This isn't just about bad encoding, as in not well aligned with the intent, but that there's always exceptions. Having that human judge be there to determine if something is actually reasonable or not is beneficial, even if there's a strong bias to follow the letter.
  • tmalsburg2 2y ago
    > Though for law, I think some ambiguity is beneficial. Ambiguity means that there are two or more possible interpretations and it's not clear which of them is intended. That's hardly useful. What's beneficial, and what you perhaps had in mind, is some amount of under-specification where the meaning is clear but leaves gaps to be filled in by judges.
    • godelski 2y ago
      Yes, this is what I mean. More focus on the intention. But I do also think we should give judges a lot of flexibility (technically they do). Because things are changing all the time.
  • gehwartzen 2y ago
    I agree with your second point about intentionality of the law. I would love to see strict requirements that new laws should have sections explaining: -the intention in writing the law. -societal and economic situation that lead to it being needed. -what measurable outcomes the law should achieve in x years
    • LorenPechtel 2y ago
      I can't see agreement on intentions in writing, there will be many intentions. What I would like to see is what harm it is supposed to prevent.
• Demonsult 2y ago
  I was pulled into a tough legal case and my lawyer explained that engineers have the hardest time working with law because they expect things to be logical. It's really a squishy mess full of ambiguities that are resolved with sophistry and head games.
  • tiahura 2y ago
    The funny part is that engineers and doctors typically think they’re the smartest one in the room. To prove this, they over think and over explain their deposition responses. All this does is give a skilled interlocutor more avenues to question and develop inconsistencies. At which point ego is triggered and they become super-defensive.
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    • quesera 2y ago
      Ah, the always-entertaining moment when a person who is technically-correct (the best kind?) realizes that the socially-correct interpretation carries greater weight in the minds of everyone except themselves. Been there. Learned eventually. Sometimes still forget. :)
    • Demonsult 2y ago
      I won through a little bit of advice suggested by a layperson. I simply got the case moved to another room. The old judge hated us and the new judge loved us. All we had to do was decline magistrate jurisdiction. My lawyer was really reluctant for reasons I believe had to do with his standing with the court and not my case. And to think that layperson could be jailed for suggesting it.
      • LiquidSky 2y ago
        No, they wouldn't, nor is this some kind of secret trick as you seem to be implying. This is a fairly common practice sometimes called "judge shopping" similar to "forum shopping" (where you try to get your case moved to the jurisdiction most friendly to your claim). It's not illegal, though it is (in theory) discouraged. As an example, if you're not familiar, look up the Eastern District of Texas and patent litigation.
• IceHegel 2y ago
  And very often means or in English - recent Supreme Court case about this.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• bluGill 2y ago
  Precise and unambiguous is important, and so legal documents will always have features that make them wordy and complex. However according to the article the grammar of legal documents is often much more complex than needed, and you could get the same precise and unambiguous language with a much easier to read grammar.
  • bunderbunder 2y ago
    Speaking as a non-lawyer who works in the legal industry, I question the idea that legalese is generally more precise and unambiguous. From what I've seen the purpose of a lot of these legal incantations is actually to be more vague. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. A more precisely worded contract, for example, is arguably more likely to have unambiguous loopholes that people can abuse without you being able to easily fight back. The well-known reductio ad absurdum of this phenomenon is Etherium smart contracts. You see this in laws, too. The US's Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and associated case law, for example, contain all sorts of explicit refusals to say things more precisely. The stated rationale, here, is that it's impossible for the people drafting these rules to anticipate every possible situation and contingency, and instead they must trust that reasonable attorneys and judges are able sort things out in the course of litigation.
    • snowfarthing 2y ago
      This reminds me of an article I read several years ago (I wish I had the link!) that explained that because the Law has contradictions, you can literally prove anything! The article then went on to say this isn't necessarily a bad thing: two lawyers put their arguments before the judge, and the judge can then decide what's best for that particular situation. The author of the article was at least somewhat libertarian, because he suggested that this is necessary when there's a single body of Law to deal with; the other way to deal with these problems is to go with arbitrators instead -- but in that case, the "Law" would be decided between the two parties and the arbitrator, which has its own twists and turns!
• taeric 2y ago
  Not just as a programming language. One that is being executed by adversarial agents. They won't just dumbly interpret the rules. They will do so with specific intent for gain. (I don't say this as a judgement.)
  • snowfarthing 2y ago
    I consider this a feature rather than a bug. If you don't advocate for yourself and those you care about, who will? There's a certain level of ethics where you may be hurting someone else, but dealing with that is ... complicated ... to say the least! What's more, the very "loophole" that enables a murderer to get away with murder is what an innocent person would use to be unjustly convicted of murder. There are very few rules that will only permit good outcomes and never bad ones.
• aragonite 2y ago
  It’s true that trying to state complicated necessary and sufficient conditions will inevitably involve a ton of essential complexity due to the nature of the subject matter, but there may still be room for improvement by eliminating additional accidental complexity introduced by e.g. cumbersome syntax. I think by "legalese" the authors probably have in mind only the accidental complexity introduced by the distinctive, convoluted syntax of legal language. For instance, here [1] is a random paragraph I found in a contract that I think is pretty good example of "legalese", and here [2] is my attempt to rewrite it for readability. All the essential complexity remains, but I think (hope!) much of the accidental complexity has been removed. :) [1] 3.3.4 Date of Issuance. Each person in whose name any book entry position or certificate for shares of Common Stock is issued shall for all purposes be deemed to have become the holder of record of such shares on the date on which the Warrant, or book entry position representing such Warrant, was surrendered and payment of the Warrant Price was made, irrespective of the date of delivery of such certificate, except that, if the date of such surrender and payment is a date when the stock transfer books of the Company or book entry system of the Warrant Agent are closed, such person shall be deemed to have become the holder of such shares at the close of business on the next succeeding date on which the stock transfer books or book entry system are open. [2] 3.3.4 Date of Issuance. To determine the record date for ownership of Common Stock shares (whether issued as a book entry or certificate), ask: Were the Company's stock transfer books and the Warrant Agent's book entry system open when the Warrant was surrendered and the Warrant Price was paid? If yes, the record date is that same date of surrender and payment. If no, the record date is the close of business on the next day when the books and systems are open.
  • torstenvl 2y ago
    What's a "record date"? How is it significant? What other provisions use that term?
    • aragonite 2y ago
      It's when a company takes a static snapshot of who officially owns shares which is then used to determine who's eligible for things like dividends or voting on company decisions. You'll often see it in dividend declarations (e.g. "shareholders of record as of March 1st will receive ...." Then if you want that dividend, you need to be officially listed as a shareholder by March 1st.)
• bunderbunder 2y ago
  I'd say it's more like a combination of trying to use natural language as a programming language in combination with behaviors that are analogous to indiscriminately using object-oriented idioms and enterprise design patterns (or overusing monads, for that matter) even when a much simpler way to express the same concept will do. Incidentally, I think that the reasons why programmers tend to do that are quite similar to the reasons for using legalese that the paper identifies.
• ivanjermakov 2y ago
  Tangential, is there studies on rewriting legal laws in some language with formal verification? I see how it can be used to assert correctness and consistence.
• LorenPechtel 2y ago
  That's what I've always thought. Legalese looks an awful lot like code (I'm a programmer) meant to cover all edge cases and not permitting subroutines. It would be an awful lot clearer if they used a single term and then defined it after the main body of the law. Put as much as possible into a global appendix--as a layman occasionally trying to look up a law I find eternal references to as defined by xxxx. And require the state to publish a version with hyperlinks and hover text.
• kjkjadksj 2y ago
  Legalese would be a lot easier to understand if they did write it like an english programming language. “If age < 21 then let alcohol = illegal” is pretty succinct and unambiguous compared to however they actually wrote that statement in legalese.