Top Law Schools

what happened to "is"

utilize too (as opposed to 'use').

If we don't use big words, people will figure out just how overpaid lawyers really are.

lawyers are bad people.

Constitute does not have the same exact meaning as the word "is".

For example:

Organs, flesh, and blood constitute the body.

She is extremely sexy.

Side note, but know what grinds my gears? When people strike out things with a FTFY, and the change adds nothing of comic or actual value.

Bildungsroman wrote:lawyers law students are bad people.

FTFY



...

These "FTFY" bastards always go unchallenged, since the infraction is so minor and we've become complacent. But, well, now I'm saying something. Deal with it.

.

Breezin wrote:what happened to "is"

I've been wondering the same thing. The above posters seem to have a good grasp on why law students talk like that. I'm sure there are other reasons, though.

Cracking topic, by the way. Well worth pursuing.

Mce252 wrote:Constitute does not have the same exact meaning as the word "is".

For example:

Organs, flesh, and blood constitute are the body.

She is extremely sexy.

Don't forget the sexy plural cousin of "is".

DaftAndDirect wrote:

Mce252 wrote:Constitute does not have the same exact meaning as the word "is".

For example:

Organs, flesh, and blood constitute are the body.

She is extremely sexy.

Don't forget the sexy plural cousin of "is".

No

"Constitute" implies some order or interaction of the particulars which, taken along with those particulars, is sufficient for forming the object in question.

For example:

Gold atoms constitute this ring.

Gold atoms are my favorite kind of atoms.

Also, gold atoms are not this ring. Some gold atoms are, and that's only because they are formed into a certain shape.

They actually can't. Lawyers were banned from using the word constitutes or even themselves constituting anything as far back as the early middle ages.

MachineLemon wrote:

DaftAndDirect wrote:

Mce252 wrote:Constitute does not have the same exact meaning as the word "is".

For example:

Organs, flesh, and blood constitute are the body.

She is extremely sexy.

Don't forget the sexy plural cousin of "is".

No

"Constitute" implies some order or interaction of the particulars which, taken along with those particulars, is sufficient for forming the object in question.

For example:

Gold atoms constitute this ring.

Gold atoms are my favorite kind of atoms.

Also, gold atoms are not this ring. Some gold atoms are, and that's only because they are formed into a certain shape.

This ring is gold atoms.

Edit: The ensuing argument is why law students are bad people.

DaftAndDirect wrote:

Mce252 wrote:Constitute does not have the same exact meaning as the word "is".

For example:

Organs, flesh, and blood constitute are the body.

She is extremely sexy.

Don't forget the sexy plural cousin of "is".

Notice I said it doesn't have the same exact meaning. The word "constitute" is much more fitting for that sentence becaues those body parts make up the body; it's awkward to say they "are" the body. Just like "The ring is gold atoms" is awkward compared to "The ring is made of gold atoms". I'm sure there are situations where this is more distinguished, but I'm not going to think of them.

Dude, they don't mean the same thing. Jesus.

You guys need to stop "reinventing the wheel."

Even if they don't mean the same thing, you can probably re-write the sentence without saying constitutes.

unless in real life you really talk like this: "Torts, crim, and civpro constitute my 1L spring semester."

Breezin wrote:Even if they don't mean the same thing, you can probably re-write the sentence without saying constitutes.

Not really relevant. You could re-write sentences to avoid just about any word. That doesn't mean you're using the best word.

Breezin wrote:unless in real life you really talk like this: "Torts, crim, and civpro constitute my 1L spring semester."

Yes, I really talk that way.

MachineLemon wrote:

Breezin wrote:Even if they don't mean the same thing, you can probably re-write the sentence without saying constitutes.

Not really relevant. You could re-write sentences to avoid just about any word. That doesn't mean you're using the best word.

Breezin wrote:unless in real life you really talk like this: "Torts, crim, and civpro constitute my 1L spring semester."

Yes, I really talk that way.

Sorry you're wrong.

Lawyers really overuse the word "advise" too, IMO

Sorry basic English is too hard and confusing for you.

romothesavior wrote:Sorry basic English is too hard and confusing for you.

"Value-Added" post Romo.

I just used "constitutes" in my Note, thought of this thread, and had a small chuckle.

Thanks TLS.

I hope y'all put this much thought into your word choice when drafting memos. You really have to or else you'll pretty much fail law school.

DaftAndDirect wrote:

romothesavior wrote:Sorry basic English is too hard and confusing for you.

"Value-Added" post Romo.

Always.

Whenever the words "implies" or "infers" are used, the following statement is typically BS...anyone else notice this?