Johnson

Legal writing
Speaking of legalese
By lawyers is a certain backward syntax much beloved

Johnson May 27th 2011 | by R.L.G. | NEW YORK

WE HAVE had our defenders

(http://www.economist.com/blogs/johnson/2011/05/obsolescent_verbs) and
opponents of shall, but can someone defend this? I was poring over a simple form
for a notary to fill out, saying that I had indeed signed the document it was attached
to. The notary's part reads

“On the ____ day of _____ in the year _____ before me, the undersigned,
personally appeared ____________, personally known to me or proved to me on
the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the individual(s) whose name(s) is (are)
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they
executed the same in his/her/their capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their
signature(s) on the instrument, the individual(s), or the person upon behalf of
which the individual(s) acted, executed the instrument.”

Many are the problems, but my primary complaint is the first couple of lines.  I
couldn't figure out, before about five readings, what was supposed to go in that
fourth blank. It's made worse by being awkwardly bracketed on both sides by
"personally". Those more accustomed to this kind of prose might have gotten it
faster, but it shouldn't take anyone (much less a very important and perspicacious
language blogger) five read-throughs to figure out what goes in the blank. Finally I
parsed the sentence and figure out the missing piece: my own name. 

Latest updates
Filled out, it would read
Sorry, Roger: Rafael Nadal is not just the king of
clay“ On the 30th day of May in the year 2011
GAME THEORY
before me, the undersigned, personally
Sam Brownback, governor of Kansas, heads for appeared RLG, personally known to me
 the exit
or proved to me on the basis of
DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA
satisfactory evidence to be the individual
“The Florida Project” is a subtle film about
poverty in America whose name is subscribed to the within
PROSPERO
instrument...”
See all updates
Normal humans would write something
like

“On May 30th, 2011, RLG appeared before me, the undersigned, after proving
on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the individual who signed the above
instrument...”

Or something like that. But the syntax is backwards. English allows, as a matter of
grammar, the order 

prepositional phrase [or adverb or object] + verb + subject

In simple writing this isn't too bad: "Then came more bad news." "Through the door
burst the biggest man I have ever seen." But it gets quickly worse the more elements
you pile up in that first position, especially something as long and multi-horned as

- On the 27th day of May in the year 2011

- before me
- (the undersigned)
- personally

appeared...

This syntax was supposed to be much beloved of writers for Time magazine once
upon a time, and was satirised (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_(magazine))  in
1936 with the comment "Backwards ran sentences until reeled the mind...Where it
will all end, knows God!" It's bad enough when used indiscriminately to tart up
homely prose. It's worse when it makes a legal instrument illegible to the citizens
who safety and property are guarded by the law. 

Next

Johnson becomes a column once again