-->
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 19, 2019, 08:26:13 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
News: Endless Summer Quarterly
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  The Smiley Smile Message Board
|-+  Non Smiley Smile Stuff
| |-+  The Sandbox
| | |-+  Evolving language
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Evolving language  (Read 5189 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« on: April 07, 2016, 08:23:14 AM »

I'm having an O/T discussion in another thread about linguistic change and thought I'd move it to the sandbox. If anyone wants to discuss the changing language, you can do it here.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: April 07, 2016, 08:24:51 AM »

This is a totally off-topic niggle, but 'work product' is linguistically incorrect legal jargon and I hate how it's seeping into and diluting proper English.
Work product or evidence of work product, like a simple journal or diary of appointments with notes, "kept in the course of business," or similar whether protected or not, can mean many things. 

The lyrics would be copyright or Intellectual Property. I guess I am not understanding the concept of "linguistically incorrect legal jargon."  It is a legal term of art.   
What don't you understand about 'linguistically incorrect'? 'Legal term of art' is synonymous to 'legal jargon.' As you understand that it is legal jargon concerning legal work, why are you applying it to song-writing? 'Product' means the end result. So the song is the product of the work, the 'work product'. Notes and things would be the by-product. Because by-product can be of particular importance in the law, lawyers made a special term (as they often do; there are a handful of professions in which there seems to be a particular effort to generate unnecessary jargon, apparently to make outsiders think the profession is more complex than it is), to refer to their by-product. Then other people, trying to sound fancy and educated, take those jargon terms and replace the common terms in other contexts and the specific meaning of words becomes diluted.
Sorry for O/T. If anyone wants to discuss this further or have the whole 'evolving nature of language' discussion, we should do it in the sandbox.
Emily - it was not for point of argument.  But, any work journal that anyone keeps in the course of business is work product.  Labor means "work" and the fruit is the "product." That is not rocket science.

If an electrician keeps a journal of his or her jobs, dated, with work notes that is evidence of work, that can be of relevance.  It does not have to be prepared for court but can be used as court evidence.  But if kept, if the electrician is sued for whatever reason, that appointment book helps him show when and where he or she was.  Everyone can show work product if they keep evidence of their work.   The notes can be incorporated by reference to support the evidence of the work.

In the legal context, there is a work product "doctrine" that protects the legal theories of the lawyer.

And it was a suggestion to those who are in the creative artistic process to continuously protect the fruits of their labor. 

The law, once broken down to it's smallest concepts, is not that difficult.  It is more a function of hard work than anything else.  Statistics and trigonometry, is harder than law school in my opinion. And it is relevant to this discussion.

If people had been in the habit of keeping everything that was written, copied on a xerox machine or on carbon paper (old school style) this would likely not be an issue in contention.  People can learn from other's mistakes. I hope that the music schools are teaching the students the importance of protecting their intellectual property, digitally.  It only makes sense.  Common sense.  Wink
You had no need to explain to me what lawyers mean when they use the term 'work product'. Can you respond to my linguistic point?
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: April 07, 2016, 09:23:52 AM »

This is a totally off-topic niggle, but 'work product' is linguistically incorrect legal jargon and I hate how it's seeping into and diluting proper English.
Work product or evidence of work product, like a simple journal or diary of appointments with notes, "kept in the course of business," or similar whether protected or not, can mean many things. 

The lyrics would be copyright or Intellectual Property. I guess I am not understanding the concept of "linguistically incorrect legal jargon."  It is a legal term of art.   
What don't you understand about 'linguistically incorrect'? 'Legal term of art' is synonymous to 'legal jargon.' As you understand that it is legal jargon concerning legal work, why are you applying it to song-writing? 'Product' means the end result. So the song is the product of the work, the 'work product'. Notes and things would be the by-product. Because by-product can be of particular importance in the law, lawyers made a special term (as they often do; there are a handful of professions in which there seems to be a particular effort to generate unnecessary jargon, apparently to make outsiders think the profession is more complex than it is), to refer to their by-product. Then other people, trying to sound fancy and educated, take those jargon terms and replace the common terms in other contexts and the specific meaning of words becomes diluted.
Sorry for O/T. If anyone wants to discuss this further or have the whole 'evolving nature of language' discussion, we should do it in the sandbox.
Emily - it was not for point of argument.  But, any work journal that anyone keeps in the course of business is work product.  Labor means "work" and the fruit is the "product." That is not rocket science.

If an electrician keeps a journal of his or her jobs, dated, with work notes that is evidence of work, that can be of relevance.  It does not have to be prepared for court but can be used as court evidence.  But if kept, if the electrician is sued for whatever reason, that appointment book helps him show when and where he or she was.  Everyone can show work product if they keep evidence of their work.   The notes can be incorporated by reference to support the evidence of the work.

In the legal context, there is a work product "doctrine" that protects the legal theories of the lawyer.

And it was a suggestion to those who are in the creative artistic process to continuously protect the fruits of their labor. 

The law, once broken down to it's smallest concepts, is not that difficult.  It is more a function of hard work than anything else.  Statistics and trigonometry, is harder than law school in my opinion. And it is relevant to this discussion.

If people had been in the habit of keeping everything that was written, copied on a xerox machine or on carbon paper (old school style) this would likely not be an issue in contention.  People can learn from other's mistakes. I hope that the music schools are teaching the students the importance of protecting their intellectual property, digitally.  It only makes sense.  Common sense.  Wink
You had no need to explain to me what lawyers mean when they use the term 'work product'. Can you respond to my linguistic point?
Emily - whether you like or find distasteful the fact that language evolves, as a result of television or internet or other sociological and commercial factors, language does evolve and people do talk about "work product."

We didn't have trials on television until the last 20 years or so when cameras were allowed in the courtroom so it is falling in the domain of everyday spoken language.

As far as linguistics, which I took several courses on, to become certified to teach English as a Second Language, to non-English speakers in my class, and in that context,  I am not sure I understand your point. I won't be "dumbing down" what I post. 

Moving this discussion, is not necessary.

Maybe you can explain why you consider a very basic concept of "work product" offensive.   It is certainly simpler than Intellectual Property.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: April 07, 2016, 09:45:39 AM »


Emily - whether you like or find distasteful the fact that language evolves, as a result of television or internet or other sociological and commercial factors, language does evolve and people do talk about "work product."

We didn't have trials on television until the last 20 years or so when cameras were allowed in the courtroom so it is falling in the domain of everyday spoken language.

As far as linguistics, which I took several courses on, to become certified to teach English as a Second Language, to non-English speakers in my class, and in that context,  I am not sure I understand your point. I won't be "dumbing down" what I post. 

Moving this discussion, is not necessary.

Maybe you can explain why you consider a very basic concept of "work product" offensive.   It is certainly simpler than Intellectual Property.

I do not find the fact of the evolution of language distasteful; often it's necessary and often it's beneficial. However, sometimes it dilutes the meaning of formerly useful words, creates ambiguity where once there was precision, creates redundancies. For example: dictionaries have started entering a secondary definition of 'literally' that is the antonym of the primary definition. If it was always clear by context what the speaker intends, that would be OK. But sometimes someone will say something like 'I literally crossed the street' and, to understand their meaning, you have to stop them and ask, "by literally, do you mean actually or figuratively?" Previous to the recent evolution, that would be unnecessary.
'Work product' is an unnecessary redundancy. There was already a perfectly good, unambiguous term for the same thing: 'by-product'. 'Work product' is ambiguous: do you mean the product generated by work, or do you mean the by-product? This is an unnecessary evolution that renders language less useful. Lawyers love jargon and creating unnecessary words, but it hurts the ability to communicate effectively.
Regarding 'dumbing-down', I would ask no-one to do that. Quite the opposite.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: April 07, 2016, 10:20:01 AM »


Emily - whether you like or find distasteful the fact that language evolves, as a result of television or internet or other sociological and commercial factors, language does evolve and people do talk about "work product."

We didn't have trials on television until the last 20 years or so when cameras were allowed in the courtroom so it is falling in the domain of everyday spoken language.

As far as linguistics, which I took several courses on, to become certified to teach English as a Second Language, to non-English speakers in my class, and in that context,  I am not sure I understand your point. I won't be "dumbing down" what I post.  

Moving this discussion, is not necessary.

Maybe you can explain why you consider a very basic concept of "work product" offensive.   It is certainly simpler than Intellectual Property.

I do not find the fact of the evolution of language distasteful; often it's necessary and often it's beneficial. However, sometimes it dilutes the meaning of formerly useful words, creates ambiguity where once there was precision, creates redundancies. For example: dictionaries have started entering a secondary definition of 'literally' that is the antonym of the primary definition. If it was always clear by context what the speaker intends, that would be OK. But sometimes someone will say something like 'I literally crossed the street' and, to understand their meaning, you have to stop them and ask, "by literally, do you mean actually or figuratively?" Previous to the recent evolution, that would be unnecessary.
'Work product' is an unnecessary redundancy. There was already a perfectly good, unambiguous term for the same thing: 'by-product'. 'Work product' is ambiguous: do you mean the product generated by work, or do you mean the by-product? This is an unnecessary evolution that renders language less useful. Lawyers love jargon and creating unnecessary words, but it hurts the ability to communicate effectively.
Regarding 'dumbing-down', I would ask no-one to do that. Quite the opposite.
Emily - that is a slap at one occupation.  It is a stereotypical generalization.  

Every occupation contributes to the addition of language to the word bank.  Sociologists, the computer industry, doctors, teachers, legislators and activist groups.  Everyone speaks in their own language - environmentalists speak in enviro-speak and talk about ambient temperature, meteorologists speak about relative humidity.  Relative to what? When I didn't understand something as a child my parents would encourage me to "look it up." Then we would talk about what I researched. If I got it wrong, or out of context, we could work through that new concept. Work product is relevant in that discussion in my opinion.


In the Welcome to the Smiley Board, the 3rd post down, Jason's post,"Those who post nonsense, threads that are one or two posts only, etc... You are all on notice.  The other mods and i are going to be watching the board a bit more closely from now on.  If new threads with little to no substance, rehashed topics, or simple questions are being posted, we're going to reserve the right to merge those threads with related threads on the same topic, or in ...'insignificant questions thread.  Just in case anyone's thread mysteriously disappears, you'll know why."

So, I like to play by the rules here. I waited decades for a group of people to discuss the Beach Boys music, and consider it a privilege.  But, I realize you have not been here for years on end and might not know this info.  Starting threads for this type sub-discussion has been sort-of frowned upon.  Just sayin.'  Wink
« Last Edit: April 07, 2016, 10:22:36 AM by filledeplage » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: April 07, 2016, 10:34:41 AM »

If it turns out no one is interested in discussing language, so be it. I often find myself thinking about language when I read, whether a book or a message board, but on a board, my thoughts are usually off-topic to the thread, so I waffle about whether to put them there. Having a thread in the sandbox for that seems handy to me.
Regarding lawyers generating unnecessary jargon, it may be stereotypical, but I also think it's true. And yes, it's a generalization, which is not necessarily bad. It's mistakenly extrapolating from a small sample to the general, or from the general to the individual that makes generalizing faulty.
Your examples, relative humidity and ambient temperatures, fill voids for the members of those professions. They provide specific terms for things that previously lacked specific terms. 'Work product' does not fulfill that function. A specific term already existed.

I'm glad your parents encouraged you to look things up.
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: April 07, 2016, 02:54:59 PM »

If it turns out no one is interested in discussing language, so be it.
I think it's interesting. Just not sure I'm ready to join this discussion in earnest.

Regarding lawyers generating unnecessary jargon, it may be stereotypical, but I also think it's true.

I think most professions--at least many--generate unnecessary jargon. Sometimes it's helpful in-house to get things done for reasons probably resembling natural evolution, but often (in my opinion) it's generated mostly to sell consulting services, industry books, and the like. Nobody says
  • anymore, now we say [y]: it shows we're on top of innovative trends! (No, it doesn't...but it impresses idiots.)
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: April 07, 2016, 04:48:53 PM »

If it turns out no one is interested in discussing language, so be it.
I think it's interesting. Just not sure I'm ready to join this discussion in earnest.

Regarding lawyers generating unnecessary jargon, it may be stereotypical, but I also think it's true.

I think most professions--at least many--generate unnecessary jargon. Sometimes it's helpful in-house to get things done for reasons probably resembling natural evolution, but often (in my opinion) it's generated mostly to sell consulting services, industry books, and the like. Nobody says
  • anymore, now we say [y]: it shows we're on top of innovative trends! (No, it doesn't...but it impresses idiots.)
People in bizness, which I don't really think is a profession, are the kings of unnecessary jargon. IT is really bad too.
I agree that sometimes, often, maybe usually, it's necessary as actual new concepts or things are developed, but often, as you point out, it's salesmanship or professional braggadocio.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2016, 04:52:06 PM by Emily » Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: April 07, 2016, 05:06:58 PM »

First, sorry for the bullet point! That was intended as a bracketed letter x, just indicating "whatever." Didn't realize it was code.

Agreed, more or less. Except that every profession has within it "bizness." Within it and surrounding it. Nothing gets done otherwise. (And nothing gets done anyway.)
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: April 07, 2016, 05:25:50 PM »

I'm thinking for instance that professional anthropologists don't deal much with business. The admins take care of it for them and they don't usually worry their pretty little heads about it. For Drs and lawyers are professionals who come in to a lot of contact with the business side of things, but the academic professions are pretty well sheltered. But that's an aside. Me, I work in bizness, so while I sneer at some aspects, I don't consider myself above.
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: April 07, 2016, 05:39:34 PM »

As a marketing director for a firm that sells (mostly) legal services primarily to law firms, but also government agencies and companies themselves, I have no room whatsoever to judge.

But I think all those professions still DO have bizness. If a person works in an academic institution, at some level (usually closer than further), it is increasingly dealing with that nonsense. Departments and activities are profit centers. Healthcare, I feel little need to explain. And so on. So sure, some individuals may try to avoid it all, but overall, the industries are the same. Huzzah. Ain't 'mericuh grand?
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Empire Of Love
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 560



View Profile WWW
« Reply #11 on: April 07, 2016, 06:40:52 PM »

I am not a fan.  I am also not pretending to be a language expert of any kind and I am so poorly read on the subject I am embarrassed.  Nevertheless, here are my thoughts:

Not being a fan does not mean that I practice what I "preach".  However, I cannot recommend highly enough that those concerned with language, specifically the English language, purchase a copy of the unabridged Oxford English Dictionary (affectionately referred to as the OED) on CD.  It will cost you around $200 but saves you paying a $1000 or more for the multi-volume set that is really tough to lug around with you wherever you go - and even requires that you turn the pages to look up the definitions.  The dictionary is worth the weight of the physical version in gold.  Why?  Two reasons:

1. It orders the words according to their primary meanings
2. It provides dated examples of historical usage

Why do these things matter?  Suppose you are reading an old book, whether fiction or non-fiction, or an historical document, and you come across a word  that is either (a) unfamiliar or (b) has changed its meaning over the years.  How are you to know the meaning at the time it was used in the particular book you are reading?  By going to the primary definition and then verifying whether or not the definition was even in use at the time the book was written will go a long way in helping you choose the author's intended meaning. 

Along the same line of thought, there are instances where the prior meaning of a word is the opposite of the present meaning.  An example: in the 17th century the word "let" meant to prevent.  Today the word means to permit.  I do not need to point out the confusion this can cause in the mind of a reader.

And finally, the further back you go in the history of a given language the more likely it is that a writer is using the primary definition (poetry may be an exception, though not always).  Given the average word has over 25 definitions, you've got a better shot at finding the intended meaning quickly if you scan the primary meaning(s) first.  The subsequent meanings under the primary meaning are shades of the primary meaning.

I cannot recommend the OED highly enough.  You cannot live without this tool if you have any interest at all in historical documents/books in the English language.

EoL
Logged

Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: April 08, 2016, 07:42:37 AM »

I'm the sort of language dork who looks up the etymology of some word that makes me curious a few times a week. The OED is certainly the resource to end all resources on that topic.
Logged
Empire Of Love
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 560



View Profile WWW
« Reply #13 on: April 08, 2016, 07:46:39 AM »

I'm the sort of language dork who looks up the etymology of some word that makes me curious a few times a week. The OED is certainly the resource to end all resources on that topic.

In regards to the making of the OED, have you read The Professor and the Madman?  If not, at least read the description at Amazon:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0060839783/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1460126623&sr=8-1&pi=SY200_QL40&keywords=professor+madman&dpPl=1&dpID=51QJD70tAUL&ref=plSrch

EoL
Logged

Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: April 08, 2016, 07:49:53 AM »

I'm the sort of language dork who looks up the etymology of some word that makes me curious a few times a week. The OED is certainly the resource to end all resources on that topic.

In regards to the making of the OED, have you read The Professor and the Madman?  If not, at least read the description at Amazon:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0060839783/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1460126623&sr=8-1&pi=SY200_QL40&keywords=professor+madman&dpPl=1&dpID=51QJD70tAUL&ref=plSrch

EoL
I have, and it's fascinating and would be not only for people interested in language but anyone interested in a good story. Highly recommended!
Logged
Empire Of Love
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 560



View Profile WWW
« Reply #15 on: April 08, 2016, 07:54:37 AM »

I'm the sort of language dork who looks up the etymology of some word that makes me curious a few times a week. The OED is certainly the resource to end all resources on that topic.

In regards to the making of the OED, have you read The Professor and the Madman?  If not, at least read the description at Amazon:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0060839783/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1460126623&sr=8-1&pi=SY200_QL40&keywords=professor+madman&dpPl=1&dpID=51QJD70tAUL&ref=plSrch

EoL
I have, and it's fascinating and would be not only for people interested in language but anyone interested in a good story. Highly recommended!

Great!  Maybe it is, or was, a popular book, but I've not run into anyone else who has heard of the book, much less read it, other than the person who recommended it to me.  Are you in the UK?  I assume both the dictionary and book are more popular there versus the US.

EoL
Logged

filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: April 08, 2016, 07:57:10 AM »

If it turns out no one is interested in discussing language, so be it. I often find myself thinking about language when I read, whether a book or a message board, but on a board, my thoughts are usually off-topic to the thread, so I waffle about whether to put them there. Having a thread in the sandbox for that seems handy to me.
Regarding lawyers generating unnecessary jargon, it may be stereotypical, but I also think it's true. And yes, it's a generalization, which is not necessarily bad. It's mistakenly extrapolating from a small sample to the general, or from the general to the individual that makes generalizing faulty.
Your examples, relative humidity and ambient temperatures, fill voids for the members of those professions. They provide specific terms for things that previously lacked specific terms. 'Work product' does not fulfill that function. A specific term already existed.

I'm glad your parents encouraged you to look things up.

Emily -  yes, my parents were involved in education, both in classroom teaching and administration. They encouraged self-help, always with support.  Kids just generally look on their phones or other devices, now.  

If one profession has language that has largely not evolved, it is the legal profession, because many of the motions and language come directly from Latin and one cannot get much older than that.  It helps make it more universal  It saved me that if nothing else, I had Latin in high school while in law school. Medicine has many common terms from Latin as well. It is their common language.

For the last 15 years or so, the law schools have been working with improving the profession to make it more user-friendly.  

Most lawyers function as teachers to break down difficult testimony to the jury to arrive at a just outcome.  

But, by-product is more the secondary product such as ash in your wood stove or fireplace is a by-product of burning wood or coal and not the primary.  And the discussion "upstairs" centered around copyright issues.    

Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: April 08, 2016, 07:57:55 AM »

I'm in the US. But, though I studied history in school, I think I actually took more classes in literature, and the history of literature has been sort of an avocation.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: April 08, 2016, 08:06:43 AM »

If it turns out no one is interested in discussing language, so be it. I often find myself thinking about language when I read, whether a book or a message board, but on a board, my thoughts are usually off-topic to the thread, so I waffle about whether to put them there. Having a thread in the sandbox for that seems handy to me.
Regarding lawyers generating unnecessary jargon, it may be stereotypical, but I also think it's true. And yes, it's a generalization, which is not necessarily bad. It's mistakenly extrapolating from a small sample to the general, or from the general to the individual that makes generalizing faulty.
Your examples, relative humidity and ambient temperatures, fill voids for the members of those professions. They provide specific terms for things that previously lacked specific terms. 'Work product' does not fulfill that function. A specific term already existed.

I'm glad your parents encouraged you to look things up.

Emily -  yes, my parents were involved in education, both in classroom teaching and administration. They encouraged self-help, always with support.  Kids just generally look on their phones or other devices, now.  

If one profession has language that has largely not evolved, it is the legal profession, because many of the motions and language come directly from Latin and one cannot get much older than that.  It helps make it more universal  It saved me that if nothing else, I had Latin in high school while in law school. Medicine has many common terms from Latin as well. It is their common language.

For the last 15 years or so, the law schools have been working with improving the profession to make it more user-friendly.  

Most lawyers function as teachers to break down difficult testimony to the jury to arrive at a just outcome.  

But, by-product is more the secondary product such as ash in your wood stove or fireplace is a by-product of burning wood or coal and not the primary.  And the discussion "upstairs" centered around copyright issues.    


When writing a song, the song would be the product; the notes and records made while writing would be by-product. But both, now, ambiguously, could also be called 'work product.' It's the ambiguity and redundancy created though the language already provided sufficient means of communicating the subject that bothers me.  
Of course the law has standard fixed terms, like any field, and as the law as we manage it is many centuries old, many of those terms are long-standing. But 'by-product' existed, with its existing meaning, before 'work product'. I do find a tendency within the law to generate redundant language. It seems to me that it's because there's a desire in the law to imply that they have 'special knowledge' beyond research, writing, argumentation, and manipulation, which are really all the skills needed.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2016, 08:50:42 AM by Emily » Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: April 08, 2016, 08:26:56 AM »

If it turns out no one is interested in discussing language, so be it. I often find myself thinking about language when I read, whether a book or a message board, but on a board, my thoughts are usually off-topic to the thread, so I waffle about whether to put them there. Having a thread in the sandbox for that seems handy to me.
Regarding lawyers generating unnecessary jargon, it may be stereotypical, but I also think it's true. And yes, it's a generalization, which is not necessarily bad. It's mistakenly extrapolating from a small sample to the general, or from the general to the individual that makes generalizing faulty.
Your examples, relative humidity and ambient temperatures, fill voids for the members of those professions. They provide specific terms for things that previously lacked specific terms. 'Work product' does not fulfill that function. A specific term already existed.

I'm glad your parents encouraged you to look things up.

Emily -  yes, my parents were involved in education, both in classroom teaching and administration. They encouraged self-help, always with support.  Kids just generally look on their phones or other devices, now.  

If one profession has language that has largely not evolved, it is the legal profession, because many of the motions and language come directly from Latin and one cannot get much older than that.  It helps make it more universal  It saved me that if nothing else, I had Latin in high school while in law school. Medicine has many common terms from Latin as well. It is their common language.

For the last 15 years or so, the law schools have been working with improving the profession to make it more user-friendly.  

Most lawyers function as teachers to break down difficult testimony to the jury to arrive at a just outcome.  

But, by-product is more the secondary product such as ash in your wood stove or fireplace is a by-product of burning wood or coal and not the primary.  And the discussion "upstairs" centered around copyright issues.    


When writing a song, the song would be the product; the notes and records made while writing would be by-product. But both, now, ambiguously, could also be called 'work product.' It's the ambiguity and redundancy created though the language already provided sufficient means of communicating the subject that bothers me. 
Of course the law has standard fixed terms, like any field, and as the law as we manage it is many centuries old, many of those terms are long-standing. But 'by-product' existed, with its existing meaning, before 'work product'. I do find a tendency, within the law, to generate redundant language. It seems to me that it's because there's a desire in the law to imply that they have 'special knowledge' beyond research, writing, argumentation, and manipulation, which are really all the skills needed.
Emily - it is the "sum of the parts" to show the authenticity of the process.  It is why I love the sessions of the BB albums.  It shows the creative process in progress. Or the out-takes in a movie.  It is unambiguous.     

Lawyers have a language that they learned alongside legal concepts, which can often be hair-splitting, but essential to arrive at a just result.  Learning the law is a privilege and the crushing amount of work can be a very humbling experience.  Lawyers take the law and apply it to the facts in front of them.  That is all. 

It is never too late to have that experience.  You might enjoy the process.    Wink
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: April 08, 2016, 08:44:11 AM »


Emily - it is the "sum of the parts" to show the authenticity of the process.  It is why I love the sessions of the BB albums.  It shows the creative process in progress. Or the out-takes in a movie.  It is unambiguous.     

Lawyers have a language that they learned alongside legal concepts, which can often be hair-splitting, but essential to arrive at a just result.  Learning the law is a privilege and the crushing amount of work can be a very humbling experience.  Lawyers take the law and apply it to the facts in front of them.  That is all. 

It is never too late to have that experience.  You might enjoy the process.    Wink
The 'product' is the end result; the 'by-product' is the non-product output generated in production; the  'work product' is the by-product, which lawyers use to 'show the authenticity of the process'.
Lawyers don't have 'a language that they learned', calling it a language is another means to make it sound like special knowledge. Lawyers use the language of the country in which they work. The do learn some terms specific to their profession. In the example we are discussing, the term was not a necessary addition to the language.
Learning the law is not a privilege beyond the degree that, in the US, some of us are privileged to be given a decent education from the start and some are not, which then affects the ability to get in to law school.
I'm sure I would enjoy law school, but I'm sure I would not enjoy practicing. Were I to go back to school, I would finish my all-but-dissertation history Ph.D or become a veterinarian. I would then set about designing a career that is as abstracted as possible from US commerce.

And, Captain, while of course the University and its departments are commercial enterprises, many of the professionals within them are not required to pay any attention to the commercial aspects, other than producing.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: April 08, 2016, 09:04:43 AM »


Emily - it is the "sum of the parts" to show the authenticity of the process.  It is why I love the sessions of the BB albums.  It shows the creative process in progress. Or the out-takes in a movie.  It is unambiguous.     

Lawyers have a language that they learned alongside legal concepts, which can often be hair-splitting, but essential to arrive at a just result.  Learning the law is a privilege and the crushing amount of work can be a very humbling experience.  Lawyers take the law and apply it to the facts in front of them.  That is all. 

It is never too late to have that experience.  You might enjoy the process.    Wink
The 'product' is the end result; the 'by-product' is the non-product output generated in production; the  'work product' is the by-product, which lawyers use to 'show the authenticity of the process'.
Lawyers don't have 'a language that they learned', calling it a language is another means to make it sound like special knowledge. Lawyers use the language of the country in which they work. The do learn some terms specific to their profession. In the example we are discussing, the term was not a necessary addition to the language.
Learning the law is not a privilege beyond the degree that, in the US, some of us are privileged to be given a decent education from the start and some are not, which then affects the ability to get in to law school.
I'm sure I would enjoy law school, but I'm sure I would not enjoy practicing. Were I to go back to school, I would finish my all-but-dissertation history Ph.D or become a veterinarian. I would then set about designing a career that is as abstracted as possible from US commerce.

And, Captain, while of course the University and its departments are commercial enterprises, many of the professionals within them are not required to pay any attention to the commercial aspects, other than producing.
Emily - Lawyers have a language that is generally referenced by Black's Law Dictionary.  It is the language of the profession in the context of the law.  While lawyers use the language of the country to be admitted and practice, they can still communicate in a commonality with the legal terms in Latin, for many purposes, that don't include court appearances.  They can be working on any number of issues and much of our law comes from English common law and other forms of law, such as the Napoleonic Code from France, which has ended up in civil and tort law in Louisiana. It comes from various sources.

And, you might be surprised that you have skill sets that are needed by military veterans who desperately need representation or in human rights.  Many lawyers come to law school with only experience as students with summer jobs in their backgrounds.  You have real experience in areas where other people who go into law have none.

You may have some very transferrable skills.  Law students all read the same books and all take the same bar exams, whether they are state schools or in the ivory tower.   

Yes, it is a privilege. One of my grand aunts became a lawyer when few women were permitted to study the law. So, I have to respectfully disagree.    Wink
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: April 08, 2016, 09:28:09 AM »


Emily - it is the "sum of the parts" to show the authenticity of the process.  It is why I love the sessions of the BB albums.  It shows the creative process in progress. Or the out-takes in a movie.  It is unambiguous.    

Lawyers have a language that they learned alongside legal concepts, which can often be hair-splitting, but essential to arrive at a just result.  Learning the law is a privilege and the crushing amount of work can be a very humbling experience.  Lawyers take the law and apply it to the facts in front of them.  That is all.  

It is never too late to have that experience.  You might enjoy the process.    Wink
The 'product' is the end result; the 'by-product' is the non-product output generated in production; the  'work product' is the by-product, which lawyers use to 'show the authenticity of the process'.
Lawyers don't have 'a language that they learned', calling it a language is another means to make it sound like special knowledge. Lawyers use the language of the country in which they work. The do learn some terms specific to their profession. In the example we are discussing, the term was not a necessary addition to the language.
Learning the law is not a privilege beyond the degree that, in the US, some of us are privileged to be given a decent education from the start and some are not, which then affects the ability to get in to law school.
I'm sure I would enjoy law school, but I'm sure I would not enjoy practicing. Were I to go back to school, I would finish my all-but-dissertation history Ph.D or become a veterinarian. I would then set about designing a career that is as abstracted as possible from US commerce.

And, Captain, while of course the University and its departments are commercial enterprises, many of the professionals within them are not required to pay any attention to the commercial aspects, other than producing.
Emily - Lawyers have a language that is generally referenced by Black's Law Dictionary.  It is the language of the profession in the context of the law.  While lawyers use the language of the country to be admitted and practice, they can still communicate in a commonality with the legal terms in Latin, for many purposes, that don't include court appearances.  They can be working on any number of issues and much of our law comes from English common law and other forms of law, such as the Napoleonic Code from France, which has ended up in civil and tort law in Louisiana. It comes from various sources.

And, you might be surprised that you have skill sets that are needed by military veterans who desperately need representation or in human rights.  Many lawyers come to law school with only experience as students with summer jobs in their backgrounds.  You have real experience in areas where other people who go into law have none.

You may have some very transferrable skills.  Law students all read the same books and all take the same bar exams, whether they are state schools or in the ivory tower.  

Yes, it is a privilege. One of my grand aunts became a lawyer when few women were permitted to study the law. So, I have to respectfully disagree.    Wink
This is the sort of thing about the use of language that bothers me: you are using the word 'language' to mean 'English with specific professional terminology'. To me, that's an incorrect use of the word 'language'.
And I'm not sure what definition you are applying to 'privilege'. It sounds like you are intending to say that the law is really awesome to study. For your aunt, it may have been a privilege as, as you say, women at that time often didn't have access. But here's the Webster's definition of privilege:


1:  a right or benefit that is given to some people and not to others
2:  a special opportunity to do something that makes you proud
3:  the advantage that wealthy and powerful people have over other people in a society
 
Studying the law is, as I said above, an aspect of number 3, as some people are denied decent elementary and secondary education in the US, so don't have access to the opportunities provided by those. It is certainly not, otherwise, number 1. Number 2 is recently evolved... so perhaps you are saying that, but I'm not sure it's a 'special' opportunity, other than the caveat, again, of number 3.
eta: I'm sure I have skills that would apply well to practicing law. As I said above, practicing law is basically "research, writing, argumentation, and manipulation" all of which I can do, though my argumentation skills are obviously failing me.
But as I also said above, I'm sure I would not enjoy practicing law. Everyone in my dad's family, including my siblings, have been lawyers, teachers or professors for 5 generations (why else would I be so pedantic and argumentative?), including the women. I've seen 'em and I do see the appeal of being a professor; a lawyer or a non-university teacher, not so much.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2016, 09:40:19 AM by Emily » Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: April 08, 2016, 01:24:16 PM »


Emily - it is the "sum of the parts" to show the authenticity of the process.  It is why I love the sessions of the BB albums.  It shows the creative process in progress. Or the out-takes in a movie.  It is unambiguous.    

Lawyers have a language that they learned alongside legal concepts, which can often be hair-splitting, but essential to arrive at a just result.  Learning the law is a privilege and the crushing amount of work can be a very humbling experience.  Lawyers take the law and apply it to the facts in front of them.  That is all.  

It is never too late to have that experience.  You might enjoy the process.    Wink
The 'product' is the end result; the 'by-product' is the non-product output generated in production; the  'work product' is the by-product, which lawyers use to 'show the authenticity of the process'.
Lawyers don't have 'a language that they learned', calling it a language is another means to make it sound like special knowledge. Lawyers use the language of the country in which they work. The do learn some terms specific to their profession. In the example we are discussing, the term was not a necessary addition to the language.
Learning the law is not a privilege beyond the degree that, in the US, some of us are privileged to be given a decent education from the start and some are not, which then affects the ability to get in to law school.
I'm sure I would enjoy law school, but I'm sure I would not enjoy practicing. Were I to go back to school, I would finish my all-but-dissertation history Ph.D or become a veterinarian. I would then set about designing a career that is as abstracted as possible from US commerce.

And, Captain, while of course the University and its departments are commercial enterprises, many of the professionals within them are not required to pay any attention to the commercial aspects, other than producing.
Emily - Lawyers have a language that is generally referenced by Black's Law Dictionary.  It is the language of the profession in the context of the law.  While lawyers use the language of the country to be admitted and practice, they can still communicate in a commonality with the legal terms in Latin, for many purposes, that don't include court appearances.  They can be working on any number of issues and much of our law comes from English common law and other forms of law, such as the Napoleonic Code from France, which has ended up in civil and tort law in Louisiana. It comes from various sources.

And, you might be surprised that you have skill sets that are needed by military veterans who desperately need representation or in human rights.  Many lawyers come to law school with only experience as students with summer jobs in their backgrounds.  You have real experience in areas where other people who go into law have none.

You may have some very transferrable skills.  Law students all read the same books and all take the same bar exams, whether they are state schools or in the ivory tower.  

Yes, it is a privilege. One of my grand aunts became a lawyer when few women were permitted to study the law. So, I have to respectfully disagree.    Wink
This is the sort of thing about the use of language that bothers me: you are using the word 'language' to mean 'English with specific professional terminology'. To me, that's an incorrect use of the word 'language'.
And I'm not sure what definition you are applying to 'privilege'. It sounds like you are intending to say that the law is really awesome to study. For your aunt, it may have been a privilege as, as you say, women at that time often didn't have access. But here's the Webster's definition of privilege:


1:  a right or benefit that is given to some people and not to others
2:  a special opportunity to do something that makes you proud
3:  the advantage that wealthy and powerful people have over other people in a society
 
Studying the law is, as I said above, an aspect of number 3, as some people are denied decent elementary and secondary education in the US, so don't have access to the opportunities provided by those. It is certainly not, otherwise, number 1. Number 2 is recently evolved... so perhaps you are saying that, but I'm not sure it's a 'special' opportunity, other than the caveat, again, of number 3.
eta: I'm sure I have skills that would apply well to practicing law. As I said above, practicing law is basically "research, writing, argumentation, and manipulation" all of which I can do, though my argumentation skills are obviously failing me.
But as I also said above, I'm sure I would not enjoy practicing law. Everyone in my dad's family, including my siblings, have been lawyers, teachers or professors for 5 generations (why else would I be so pedantic and argumentative?), including the women. I've seen 'em and I do see the appeal of being a professor; a lawyer or a non-university teacher, not so much.
Emily - When I look around, and see others who did not have the opportunity to go to college and grad school, I feel it was a great gift, that I did not take lightly - #1.  (My grand aunt went to law school when it was only for the "boys.")

And, I felt "privileged" to be a classroom teacher - #2.  Most of the kids I taught were very poor and whose families had less than mine.  And, I felt privileged to study law; it is a different lens and filter.  An education is a gift.  It is the equalizer in life for that #3.

You might enjoy being a professor and a doctorate in history is the ticket, but we don't have to have the same occupation, our whole lives.   

The academic calendar is convenient for parents raising children.   Wink 
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: April 08, 2016, 01:36:11 PM »

The academic calendar is convenient for parents raising children.   Wink 

How so?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.255 seconds with 21 queries.