Legal Writing and "to"
The next time someone criticizes legal writing, just point to the writers who create assembly instructions. That is where the Plain English movement would do some good.
Read Mark Liberman’s post today at Language Log about the lack of determiners in assembly instructions.
Benjamin Zimmer also has an interesting post at Language Log, dissecting the Bill of Rights grammatically. His discussion of the word “to” “pulling double-duty: first as a preposition, then as an infinitive marker” helped clarify an issue that I often see in legal writing. When you use a clause to introduce a list of items, you may sometimes be uncertain whether the “to” goes in the introductory clause or in each of the items. Benjamin’s example is New York’s Taxicab Rider’s Bill of Rights:
As a taxi rider, you have the right to:
[i] Direct the destination and route used;
[ii] Travel to any destination in the five boroughs of the City of New York;
[iii] A courteous, English-speaking driver who knows the streets in Manhattan and the way to major destinations in other boroughs;
[iv] A driver who knows and obeys all traffic laws;
[v] Air-conditioning on demand;
[vi] A radio-free (silent) trip;
[vii] Smoke and incense-free air;
[viii] A clean passenger seat area;
[ix] A clean trunk;
[x] A driver who uses the horn only when necessary to warn of danger; and
[xi] Refuse to tip, if the above are not complied with.
Benjamin’s marked-up version would go like this:
As a taxi rider, you have the right:
[i*] To direct the destination and route used;
[ii*] To travel to any destination in the five boroughs of the City of New York;
[iii*] To a courteous, English-speaking driver who knows the streets in Manhattan and the way to major destinations in other boroughs;
[iv*] To a driver who knows and obeys all traffic laws;
[etc.]
Read his entire post. Understanding the dual use of hte word "to" can help avoid some confusion in any writing.
Posted on 9:10 AM by susan
