Small detail: it's "Res ipsa loquitur", not loquitor.
Aside from that, your column brings up another Latin expression of a conundrum , but fails to answer it: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? This Latin phrase translates as "Who guards the guards themselves?" or "Who will watch the watchmen?". It's often used for a situation where someone or something has the power to scrutinize people's conduct, but is not itself subject to such scrutiny
I had to look back at the piece to see what it was all about; after all, that was 9 days ago. My problem is, it contained several legal assertions that were totally new to me, and I'm reluctant to opine on those, being no lawyer but only a wordsmith.
Which reminds me: it's "free rein", NOT "free reign" -- although in your defense, most Americans seem to make the same mistake, which has something to do with English spelling being terribly confusing. In this case, at one time in the past "reign" must have been pronounced with an audible "g", being derived from the Latin word "regnum", which meant "kingship"; the verb "to reign" is "regnare" in Latin, although traditionally a Latin dictionary will present it as "regno", which is the first person singular form. The word "rein", on the other hand, merely meant the leather straps by which a horse is controlled, which then became a symbol for "power" or "control".
The problem with all this is that unlike other European languages, English spelling was never updated and rationalized, which has resulted in a lot of confusion -- as in this case. To be frank, I'm too much of a fusspot about these things; instead I should keep in mind that immortal rule of linguistics: "It don't matter none."
I have to apologize to you. I could have saved you much time from the beginning. These newsletters are for people who want to know how our legal profession got broken. It's not for people who are into other matters.
Small detail: it's "Res ipsa loquitur", not loquitor.
Aside from that, your column brings up another Latin expression of a conundrum , but fails to answer it: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? This Latin phrase translates as "Who guards the guards themselves?" or "Who will watch the watchmen?". It's often used for a situation where someone or something has the power to scrutinize people's conduct, but is not itself subject to such scrutiny
Thanks for the small detail, Wim de Vriend. The larger question: Can you comment on the findings and conclusions reached?
I had to look back at the piece to see what it was all about; after all, that was 9 days ago. My problem is, it contained several legal assertions that were totally new to me, and I'm reluctant to opine on those, being no lawyer but only a wordsmith.
Which reminds me: it's "free rein", NOT "free reign" -- although in your defense, most Americans seem to make the same mistake, which has something to do with English spelling being terribly confusing. In this case, at one time in the past "reign" must have been pronounced with an audible "g", being derived from the Latin word "regnum", which meant "kingship"; the verb "to reign" is "regnare" in Latin, although traditionally a Latin dictionary will present it as "regno", which is the first person singular form. The word "rein", on the other hand, merely meant the leather straps by which a horse is controlled, which then became a symbol for "power" or "control".
The problem with all this is that unlike other European languages, English spelling was never updated and rationalized, which has resulted in a lot of confusion -- as in this case. To be frank, I'm too much of a fusspot about these things; instead I should keep in mind that immortal rule of linguistics: "It don't matter none."
Wim de Vriend, you do not need to be a lawyer to understand the basic concepts.
For example, a traffic light is a good analogy. Everyone knows that you cannot run through a red light. The rules governing lawyers are that simple.
Dear Wim de Vriend,
I have to apologize to you. I could have saved you much time from the beginning. These newsletters are for people who want to know how our legal profession got broken. It's not for people who are into other matters.