Lawyers in Need of Linguistic Training

[Jonathan Lighter]

Thanks, John.  The case in question was described to me as being much like that.  One may speculate that an enthusiastic pedagogue read of the comma's significance and misinterpreted the decision as a dramatic vindication of the traditional series punctuation.  (Though apparently more careful punctuation might have saved everyone a lot of money and trouble.)


  JL

"Baker, John" <JMB at STRADLEY.COM> wrote:
  ---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
Sender: American Dialect Society
Poster: "Baker, John"
Subject: Re: Lawyers in Need of Linguistic Training
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not sure about the specific case, though of course there
have been a number of cases, particularly in statutory interpretation,
that have turned on the use or absence of commas. At first I thought
you may be thinking of In re Potolsky's Estate, 9 Misc.2d 326, 169
N.Y.S.2d 328 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 1957), where the decedent left his estate
"to the following, absolutely share and share alike: my sister-in-law,
Rose * * *; my sister-in-law, Bella * * *; my brother-in-law, Harry * *
*; my sister, Celia * * *; my nephew and nieces Sam * * *, Gertrude * *
* and Yetta * * *; and the Bialystoker Home for the Aged." The question
was whether the nephew and nieces each got a one-eighth share, or
collectively shared in a one-sixth portion. The court ruled the former.
It did not rely on the punctuation, though, but said, "In the absence of
proof that the grammatical form of punctuation used by the draftsman was
understood and accepted by the testatrix as an integral part of the
writing, little or no importance may be attached to it."


John Baker



-----Original Message-----
From: American Dialect Society [mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Jonathan Lighter
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 7:55 PM
To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: Lawyers in Need of Linguistic Training

One reason for the furor may be that the "ambiguous comma" is a staple
of academic folklore. About twenty years ago I was discussing with a
pair of colleagues the often omitted "final" comma in a series such as
"Tom, Dick, and Harry." Frankly, I recommend the comma because I find it
aids my limited comprehension, but recent practice, particularly among
journalists, varies as to including or omitting it. One yung colleague
solemnly insisted that the comma was absolutely essential, and that he
drove the point home to his students by telling them of the
"multi-million dollar lawsuit" that turned finally on the interpretation
of the comma's absence. Needless to say, the sympathetic party in the
story lost out to the evil, Pharisaic party that had seized upon the
comma issue to win the day in spite of all other human factors.

Also needless to say, the story-teller knew nothing about the suit's
details, except that he had "read about it," and that it involved a
giant inheritance.

Since you bring the subject up, John, do you know anything of a
notorious *actual* lawsuit that turned crucially on a comma of that
type?

JL

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org



---------------------------------
See the all-new, redesigned Yahoo.com.  Check it out.

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org