3 ms·

TIL that formal languages are better at specifying rules than informal languages (it's why legalese exists)

Asraelite 2y ago
That's not really why legalese exists, or at least not why it's quite as obtuse as it is: https://news.mit.edu/2024/mit-study-explains-laws-incomprehensible-writing-style-0819 https://news.mit.edu/2024/mit-study-explains-laws-incomprehe...
- Vampiero 2y ago
  Let's be real, legalese wasn't invented "to convey a false sense of authority" but to settle disputes as objectively as possible while leaving no room for misinterpretation. i.e. by formally specifying the constraints that define a law's applicability using unambiguous language. The article you posted is a secondary effect. It's like saying that writing in math lingo "conveys a false sense of intelligence". Sure but that's not the point and it's mostly a projection of the listener's insecurity and lack of familiarity with the language anyway.
  - Asraelite 2y ago
    Note the part of the article that says "Lawyers tended to prefer plain English versions of documents, and they rated those versions to be just as enforceable as traditional legal documents."
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - Vampiero 2y ago
      It's only because they know how to translate from English to a rigid, formal language that they already know. Just like you can map English to the language you use at work. You had to learn the language first, or you wouldn't have internalized its grammar and semantics. I'd rather get a complex spec in English than in pseudocode. But I'm still going to write the code in C# or whatever.
      - trod1234 2y ago
        That's a bit misleading because it neglects the history and changes of how things were, and how they are now. Communication by words and language in general is the sharing of meaning. At one point, each word had a distinct and unique meaning, that may have depended on context, but it always followed rational principles in the definition. This is no longer the case. Words have been corrupted so that by definition (formal or informal/spoken), they may have two potentially contradictory meanings. Fallacy and other deceit then creep in, and without a direct unique and non-contradictory definition, you can't communicate anything; even if it sounds like communication (it isn't when meaning isn't shared).

That's not really why legalese exists, or at least not why it's quite as obtuse as it is: https://news.mit.edu/2024/mit-study-explains-laws-incomprehensible-writing-style-0819 https://news.mit.edu/2024/mit-study-explains-laws-incomprehe...

Vampiero 2y ago
Let's be real, legalese wasn't invented "to convey a false sense of authority" but to settle disputes as objectively as possible while leaving no room for misinterpretation. i.e. by formally specifying the constraints that define a law's applicability using unambiguous language. The article you posted is a secondary effect. It's like saying that writing in math lingo "conveys a false sense of intelligence". Sure but that's not the point and it's mostly a projection of the listener's insecurity and lack of familiarity with the language anyway.
- Asraelite 2y ago
  Note the part of the article that says "Lawyers tended to prefer plain English versions of documents, and they rated those versions to be just as enforceable as traditional legal documents."
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - Vampiero 2y ago
    It's only because they know how to translate from English to a rigid, formal language that they already know. Just like you can map English to the language you use at work. You had to learn the language first, or you wouldn't have internalized its grammar and semantics. I'd rather get a complex spec in English than in pseudocode. But I'm still going to write the code in C# or whatever.
    - trod1234 2y ago
      That's a bit misleading because it neglects the history and changes of how things were, and how they are now. Communication by words and language in general is the sharing of meaning. At one point, each word had a distinct and unique meaning, that may have depended on context, but it always followed rational principles in the definition. This is no longer the case. Words have been corrupted so that by definition (formal or informal/spoken), they may have two potentially contradictory meanings. Fallacy and other deceit then creep in, and without a direct unique and non-contradictory definition, you can't communicate anything; even if it sounds like communication (it isn't when meaning isn't shared).