Speakers of legalese
are generally fairly avid worders. While they don't do much in the way of
verbing (generally the most common manner for coining new usages), they
absolutely love overextending the application of prefixes and suffixes—three of
the most common being -ant, -ee, and -or. This is where we get words like the common “granto” and “grantee,”
the less common and significantly uglier “mortgagee” and “mortgagor,” and,
among the worst, “misdemeanant,” the epitome of inartful legalese, employing an
impressively articulate and accurate suffix, at the total expense of poetic
expression. Not that this last has any rightful place in the law; imagine
how much worse (or better!?) the U.S.
Code would be if the Legislature were poets (though I think there's a contrary
argument there, though definitely for another time).
So what if, really, on
the other hand, a little freedom of expression were employed—creativity
moderately restrained by accuracy of intent and con-/denotation—by those on the
hill? Intent is where it's at, anyway, right? For, after all, both textualists
and purposivists alike (no matter what the staunch representatives of either
caste may claim) are dominantly easily swayed in their statutory
interpretations by the clear intent of language by those who spoke and wrote
it. In all actuality, I think this is where the scriveners (scribblers)
of the law get it wrong! I mean, come
on! How much sense does misdemeanant
really make? (Remind me sometime to post
a list of the worst of single-word legalese.)
I think what the legal
coiners should actually do, and in all sincerity, rather than hyper-extend
prefixes and suffixes to the point of straining their roots to near
meaninglessness (see what I did there?), should employ the very
Carrollian portmanteau:
a strategic combination of two words, rather than the rote equation of prefix +
root + suffix = x, to make a new word, which, when effectively employed, can
ascribe additional or tangential meaning, which flexibility, really, is at the
very heart of the English language anyway (yeah, I am fully aware how dangerous
this could be in the practice where legalese is used—and (*shudder*) in the
hands of those who use it – but how much more fun!).
So take a look at
these (etymology taken directly from the most excellent www.etymonline.com):
misdemeanor: also misdemeanour, “legal class of indictable offenses,” late
15c.; from mis- (1) “wrong” + M.E. demenure (see demeanor).
Related: Misdemeanors; misdemeanours.
-ant: agent or instrumental suffix, from O.Fr. and Fr. -ant, from
L. -antem,
acc. of -ans,
prp. suffix of many Latin verbs.
mien: “facial expression,” 1510s, shortening of M.E. demean “bearing, demeanor” (see demeanor);
infl. by M.Fr. mine “appearance,
facial expression,” possibly of Celtic origin (cf. Bret. min “beak, muzzle, nose,” Ir. men “mouth”).
The combinations, I
think, are obvious (as designated in the title, above). “Misdemeanie,” is
fairly sophomoric, but how excellent, especially considering the apropos
circularity of origin, is “misdemien”? Huh!?
Right!? Is such flagrant
potential for inaccuracy of usage dangerous? Sure. But the law
would be so much more fun!
