Latin Immersion [?]

Discussion in 'Linguistics' started by superstring01, Aug 21, 2011.

  1. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,559
    Most legal work is behind the scenes, in writing, in the form of motions (pleadings) and responses thereto filed with the judge. The judge then decides which attorney's position is the more compelling. Being able to drop in a few choice Latin phrases from time to time is an indication of an erudite writer, and tends to sway a judge who might be otherwise undecided, since almost all judges have been extensively exposed to Latin phrases. Res ipsa loquitor.

    Once it gets to trial, of course you'd no longer use Latin in front of the jurors.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    No. Spanish is Latin like Hindi is Sanskrit, or like English is Old High German. The Indo-Iranian languages, along with the Balto-Slavic languages and a few other odds and ends, make up the Eastern branch of the Indo-European family. The Italic, Germanic, Celtic and Hellenic languages make up the Western branch. The separation of the branches goes back very roughly 3,500 years. Not all linguists agree with this categorization, and furthermore there are a few I-E languages that don't fit in either branch such as Albanian, Tocharian and Armenian.

    English is in fact somewhat more closely related to Latin than to Sanskrit, although it is not a direct descendant of either. Your Spanish will certainly make Latin easier for you than for the average monolingual American.

    German, one of our closest relatives, still has noun declensions, as do the modern Slavic languages. They were a hallmark of Proto-Indo-European.
    When you start investigating non-Indo-European languages you will start regarding Latin as a cherished relative with just a few interesting quirks. Chinese has no tense, no number, no gender, and no prepositions, adjectives or adverbs. (Traditional linguists disagree with me on the last three, but their paradigm simply makes the language seem unnecessarily bizarre and complicated.) Japanese does not have subject-verb-object syntax: theirs is topic-description.
    I'll wager that you'll just settle for understanding and correctly tossing out a large glossary of legal terms, rather than actually being able to construct a sentence and understand one constructed by someone else, qualifying you for daily life in Vatican City.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    On top of that, there's no standard pronunciation. In the Vatican most people pronounce the words as if they were Italian, with soft C pronounced as CH, soft G as J, intervocalic S as Z, V as V, silent H, etc.

    In the British Anglican hierarchy they more often butcher the vowels while at the same time hanging onto classical Latin consonants, such as pronouncing V as W, J as Y, and audible H. Americans combine a little bit of the Italian system with a little bit of the British system, but if you interview ten Americans who are fluent in Latin you'll probably hear at least three different systems.

    Lawyers arguably treat it with the most disdain. A writ of certiorari would most likely be pronouned chair-tzi-o-rah-ree in the Vatican and sair-tyo-rare-ee in England. But American lawyers say sir-shuh-rare-ee. I don't think Ovid would understand legal Latin. He would have said care-tyo-rah-ree.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    So no matter which phonetic paradigm you choose to learn, at least half the people you meet will think you're saying the words wrong--as well as all the people in ancient Rome, should you get a ride in a time machine.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. raydpratt Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    89
    There was a specific instance in one of my civil-rights actions where I wanted to change from singular to plural, or something like that, when using a Latin legal phrase. It bothered me that I did not know enough to be sure of myself.

    Generally, there is no point in using Latin where English will do, but many legal doctrines or terms are still commonly stated in Latin: stare decisis, res ipsa loquiter, certiorari (sir-shee-oh-rar-ee), mandamus, habeas corpus, etc.

    I would only use a Latin legal phrase or doctrine if the Latin term was commonly used. My intent in using a Latin legal phrase as a pro se litigator would be to impress upon the court and/or my adversary that I know the law and that the law is settled to the point of being ancient. I would support it with modern case or statutory citations, but the ancient support of a Latin legal term adds a color that might dissuade the court and adversary from being chummy good ol' boys against the non-attorney.

    Admittedly, it doesn't work. Pro se litigants only win with good cases if they are in front of an honest judge or an honest panel of judges on appeal. I learned the hard way that winning an appeal won't make a dishonest court honest after the return trip. Still, the Latin can't hurt.
     
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2011
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. raydpratt Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    89
    Ooops: res ipsa loquitur, not loquiter.
     
  8. AnWulf Registered Member

    Messages:
    9
    un-latinizing

    If you know Spanish, then try Interlingua ... basically, it is Latin without the declensions on hybrid English/Spanish (Romance Tongue) framework. It might help you ease into Latin if you really want to learn it.

    I with you! There are many Anglo-Germanic root words that can be brooked instead of Latinates. BTW ... I would say un-latinizing ... still a half-breed but at least its with an English forefast (prefix) instead of the Latin one.

    If anyone wants to learn a "dead" tung ... I put forth that you should learn Anglo-Saxon (Old English). Learn the Anglo-Germanic roots of English rather than the French/Latin roots of the Norman overlords ...
     
  9. AnWulf Registered Member

    Messages:
    9
    True! I've been pro se as well. Always keep in mind that there are three levels of lawyers:
    1. Those who can ... do.
    2. Those who can't ... teach.
    3. Those who can't teach ... judge.

    Most judges (I won't call them a deemers, they aren't that good) come from the lower rung of the legal profession. A good judge judge (deemer) will appreciate that a pro se advocate has taken the time to learn the ropes and will give more leeway. The more typical moron-in-a-black-robe is upset that a lay person can learn and do what he couldn't!
     
  10. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    A "third-breed," actually. The suffix -ize was taken from Greek.
    That's said about every profession, although the third line is usually rendered as "Those who can't teach... teach teachers.

    But this is a slur against teachers by those who truly cannot teach, or at least don't have the temperament to put up with the milieu. I was a star as a programmer (wrote a mission-critical utility that ran around the clock for thirteen years and only crashed twice due to input formats that we couldn't possibly have anticipated in 1970), but I happily accepted the opportunity to teach programming because, unlike the stereotypical techie, I enjoy working with people more than with technology. I was good at that too, and since then have taught a wide variety of subjects and even done my share of course development.

    People who would rather teach law than practice it have discovered a similar preference, although it usually takes many more years of experience to qualify for that position in their field than in mine, where most of what one learned five years ago is no longer correct.
    I suspect this is just as much an undeserved slur against judges as the original was against teachers. I've sat on a number of juries and in a number of courtrooms observing while waiting for my case to come up. There are morons in any profession and the judiciary is no exception, but in general I was quite satisfied by their skill, knowledge and attitude.

    I don't see that the percentage of bad lawyers serving on the bench is any higher than the percentage of bad lawyers serving as counsel.

    Now if you want to talk about Congressmen...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. AnWulf Registered Member

    Messages:
    9
    It's an old saying that those who can ... do; those who can't ... teach. True, there are some who can do both and neither. I've had more than one college prof who admitted that they couldn't handle the corporate world and came back to academia where they felt comfortable. And that's ok. I've always thought that I would finish that Master of History and after I retire, I'd be the dirty old history prof at the local community college! lol

    As for judges ... well, I've been in the ol' "doomhouse" more than I ever care to be as a juror, litigant, and as an observer. I've been involved in judicial elections, testifying before legislative committees for law reforms, and have given many talks on it. It's sad to say, but, in my experience, far more judges come from the bottom tier of the legal profession than the top tier. I've seen them make some bizarre rulings and think that the black robe make them a deity (indeed, one said that he was god in his courtroom!). For those deemers who are swinkful (diligent), I'm sorry that they get drug thru the mud along with their less competent peers but they do seem to be in the minority. ... And no amount of Latin will help poor judges ... in fact, I think they're intimidated by those who can throw the Latin out in a coherent way.
     
  12. hotsexyangelprincess WMD Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    716
    Is this Athelwulf returned?
     
  13. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    I thought that.
    But then decided not.
    If it is: welcome back Athelwunf, we missed you!
     

Share This Page