Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

How to head off a legal reading of a term or phrase?

+0
−0

I posted this over on the Eng Lang Stack, but they say it likely is more apropos here.

Terms like 'make whole', 'encumbered', etc have both non-financial/non-legal usages and financial/legal usages and, in some cases, explicit financial/legal definitions.

To avoid technical connotations, to avoid the possibility of a sentence being read as a legal statement, an obvious workaround is to swap in such a synonym. But synonyms may not exist, or when one does exist, the sentence may unacceptably degrade.

Another remedy is to include a phrase such as 'colloquially speaking'. But the deprecation could be inappropriate.

What are other ways to minimize the chance of a sentence from being misconstrued in this way? Is there an adjective or modifer that accomplishes this?

Fictitious examples:

A divorce can make whole both parties. (google: "make whole" divorce. For example: http://www.divorcecentral.com/lifeline/life_ans.html. Make Whole in the sense of closure, in the sense of getting on with their lives.)

The VA is a monopoly on veteran healthcare. (This sentence was spoken a few minutes ago by Senator Lindsey Graham at his Town Hall, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtzDvmLrK-s at about 40:00. Monopoly in the sense the Veterans Administration is immune from competition.)

EDIT: Context is non-fiction, formal.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/27377. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.

0 comment threads

1 answer

+0
−0

There really is no way to indicate that you are using a term in a non-technical sense if you use it in a context in which the technical sense would normally be inferred. The best approach to avoiding ambiguity in these cases is to approach the entire descriptions differently. Don't just substitute a synonym for the problematic word, rewrite the entire sentence or paragraph to avoid summing up the idea in one word at all. Write out in more precise and detailed terms the idea that you wanted to convey by that single word. So, for instance, in the example you gave, say "arrange things so they are able to get on with their lives".

Words are placeholders for complex ideas which can always be more precisely stated using more words. The use of the placeholders speeds communication when they are use in context where there meaning is clear. But sometimes they are ambiguous, and their intended meaning cannot reliably be made clear. In these cases the only safe course is to drop back to the longer phrase, sentence, or even paragraph that expresses the idea that the word stands for.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

0 comment threads

Sign up to answer this question »