82,892
edits
Latin: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
An outrage in the eyes of anyone with an affection for | An outrage in the eyes of anyone with an affection for [[plain English]], Latinisms are (with {{f|flannel}}) the most obvious device by which the profession puts its language beyond the comprehension of the laiety. Some, in fairness, neatly capture concepts that their English equivalents make a bit of a meal of — like [[mutatis mutandis]]. Others are really just buzzwords that young lawyers learn to use to sound competent in front of their elders. | ||
===[[Latin]] buzzwords=== | ===[[Latin]] buzzwords=== | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
*[[causidicus mediocris]] | *[[causidicus mediocris]] | ||
=== | ==={{t|Latin maxims}}=== | ||
Then there are legal maxims — pithy aphorisms describing fundamental principles of the common law — which their authors inevitably render in Latin, thereby making them sound like they have existed since the dawn of curial civilization, rather than having just been made up on the spot to fudge an awkward precedent. | Then there are legal maxims — pithy aphorisms describing fundamental principles of the common law — which their authors inevitably render in Latin, thereby making them sound like they have existed since the dawn of curial civilization, rather than having just been made up on the spot to fudge an awkward precedent. | ||