consect

[Jonathan Lighter]

I think it likely that what actually was uttered was "consec the sentences."

The { t } I indicated may be a phantom. The word makes more sense
etymologically without it.

If that could matter to anybody.

JL

On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Baker, John <JMB at stradley.com> wrote:

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       "Baker, John" <JMB at STRADLEY.COM>
> Subject:      Re: consect
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>         But as a verb, as Jon heard?
>
>        I searched for "consect," which is why I didn't spot the
> "consec" instances.
>
>
> John Baker
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: American Dialect Society [mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf
> Of Dan Goncharoff
> Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 12:28 PM
> To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> Subject: Re: consect
>
> "Consec" seems to be a fairly common abbreviation for "consecutive", at
> least in law-related websites.
> DanG
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Baker, John <JMB at stradley.com> wrote:
>
> > ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> > -----------------------
> > Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> > Poster:       "Baker, John" <JMB at STRADLEY.COM>
> > Subject:      Re: consect
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
> >
> >        It may be a term that's used by the criminal defense bar in
> > Florida, or in the local area where the trial was held.  I'm not aware
> > of any examples of its use in legal writing, although an informal term
> > like this is probably used orally rather than in writing anyway.  It's
> > even possible (though not particularly likely) that it really was
> > invented by the defense attorney, or by someone with whom she has come
> > in contact.
> >
> >        The use was apparently pretty transparent (after all, you knew
> > immediately what it meant), so it's not surprising that the judge
> didn't
> > remark on it.  It would be different if the term actually had been
> used
> > in a formal motion; then the judge would be more likely to remark with
> > disdain that the defendant's motion didn't even have an established
> > legal meaning.
> >
> >        Now that it's been used on television in a high-profile case,
> > the term is more likely to take off.  If it does, we'll know that
> Jon's
> > diligence memorialized its initial popularization.
> >
> >
> > John Baker
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: American Dialect Society [mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On
> Behalf
> > Of Jonathan Lighter
> > Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 11:54 AM
> > To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> > Subject: Re: consect
> >
> > John, it may have been one of the younger female defense attorneys who
> > actually used the word. By the time I finished noting it, the precise
> > speaker had fled my mind.
> >
> > The judge didn't start pounding his gavel shouting, "What the hell are
> > you
> > talking about? Order in the court!!" So I assume she didn't coin it.
> >
> > JL
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Baker, John <JMB at stradley.com> wrote:
> >
> > > ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> > > -----------------------
> > > Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> > > Poster:       "Baker, John" <JMB at STRADLEY.COM>
> > > Subject:      Re: consect
> > >
> > >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > -------
> > >
> > >        No, it's a neologism.  I don't immediately see any other
> > > examples of its use at all, although I suspect that a more diligent
> > > search would turn up a handful.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > John Baker
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: American Dialect Society [mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On
> > Behalf
> > > Of Jonathan Lighter
> > > Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 10:04 AM
> > > To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> > > Subject: consect
> > >
> > > Not in OED.
> > >
> > > The tot-mom jurors (who weren't afraid to put two and two together
> and
> > > get
> > > two) convicted Tot Mom on four counts of lying to investigators.
> > >
> > > This morning Chief Judge Belvin Perry, Jr., decided to "consect" the
> > > four-year sentences - make them run consecutively rather than
> > > concurrently.
> > >
> > > I assume this is a well-known legal term.
> > >
> > > JL
> > >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>



--
"If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle the truth."

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