Monthly Archives: November 2010

Schiess’s biggest pet peeves: usage

These are the little word-usage mistakes that bother me. My peeved attitude is entirely nonrational: they’re generally harmless mistakes, and most have worked their way into acceptance—at least in speech. I’m actually sometimes impatient with word pedants, but I can be that way, too. Here goes:

try and

Don’t try and go to the store. Try to go to the store.

lie and lay

You’re not going to go lay down. Unless you mean you have some soft feathers and you’re planning to place them on something. You’re going to lie down.

begs the question

That I saw dark clouds in the sky doesn’t beg the question of whether it will rain. It raises the question.

missing -ed

It’s not an old-fashion car or an item of return merchandise or a cancel check. Old-fashioned car, returned merchandise, canceled check.

lead for led

Yesterday, you lead me to your door? No, you led me.

ironic

“It’s ironic that he wanted to be a cowboy, and now he will never be able to be one.” That’s sad. “It’s ironic that he wanted to be a cowboy, and he met someone who also wanted to be a cowboy.” That’s a coincidence. What’s ironic is that he wanted to be a cowboy, and now a cowboy wants to be him.

The 10th MoUS changed everything

Yesterday a former student visited me to say hello and catch up. He is an appellate lawyer with the Department of Justice. Gradually, the memories came back, and I remembered that he had taken my advanced legal writing class. He reminded me also that I had supervised his work for credit when he and some  classmates revised the Texas Law Review Manual on Usage and Style (MoUS). They produced the 10th edition.

Under this student’s leadership, the 10th MoUS became, in my view, a much better product. It was thoroughly revised and updated. The revisers weeded out myths and superstitions or labeled them as such. They created better examples. They modernized the layout and style. My contributions were limited—they, and my former student in particular—deserve the credit.

Ever since spring 2005, when that 10th edition came out, I have unreservedly recommended it. Although it is not a comprehensive legal-style manual, it is a good one: inexpensive, accessible, and reliable. The 11th edition came out in 2008, and those revisers—with my former TA among them—made further improvements to the MoUS. Two students are currently working under my supervision on the 12th edition, due out in 2011, and again a former student is one of them.

I take no credit. I review their work and make suggestions—that’s it. These students work hard, and they deserve credit, both figuratively and literally. And my former student, the driving force behind the 10th MoUS, was the one who laid the foundation for it all. Well done.

The 99% comment

Theodore L. Blumberg practices entertainment law in Manhattan. He has written a book about legal writing. In it, he said, “As a colleague of mine once put it, ‘I never met a man who didn’t think he was a great lover or a lawyer who didn’t think he was a great writer. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, they’re deluded.'”

Theodore L. Blumberg, The Seven Deadly Sins of Legal Writing 1 (2008).