On words
Bookworm on May 20 2008 at 7:49 pm | Filed under: Uncategorized
I can’t decide if the following is a wonderful or a horrible sentence:
The City’s argument is a fine polysyllogism, with flawlessly connected episyllogisms, but its initial premise is flawed.
From Blasland, Bouck & Lee v. City of N. Miami, 283 F.3d 1286 (11th Cir. 2002).
I am, as you can see, doing legal work tonight.
Email This Post To A Friend
3 Responses to “On words”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Exactly — that’s why I never would have made it as a lawyer.
I’m impressed that you can wade through stuff like that and still retain your sanity.
It’s a silly sentence. If you have to go to a dictionary to catch what one word means, then maybe you’re learning. But if you have to check three words in the same sentence … sheesh! Poor English. Muddled thinking.
syllogism = “deductive reasoning in which a conclusion is derived from two premises”
polysyllogism = “an argument made up of a chain of syllogisms, the conclusion of each being a premise of the one following, until the last one. ”
episyllogism = “a syllogism one of the premises of which is the conclusion of a preceding syllogism; any of the syllogisms included in a polysyllogism except the first one. ”
I still have no idea what that sentence really means. If the writer means to say the argument is logically laid out but based on a flawed premise, why not say so? Who’s he trying to impress? Horrid stuff.
It’s a house built of cards. Very geometric and well laid out, but structurally weak at the bottom as you pile more weight on top.