Illuminate Legal Terminology™

Research

Can we translate our customary methods and techniques when research transports us into another legal culture?

details »

Writing

Cultures and legal systems other than our own have made valuable contributions to the history of written law.

details »

Translation

Translation provides a laboratory in which we can learn to elevate our capacity to select and use legal terminology.

details »

/// Blog

Fifty Years of Legal Tech - Posted by Frank Taylor on July 13, 2017 The World Peace Through Law Conference of 1967 featured “the first international demonstration of the rapidly developing technology of computers and automatic data processing equipment and their use as aids to the legal profession.”[1]  The fiftieth anniversary of the event provides an occasion to reflect on the […]
How alphabets have changed jurisprudence, justice, and law - Posted by Frank Taylor on November 8, 2016 Centuries after the Roman Empire disintegrated,[1] the terminology of Roman law continues to influence our world.[2]  An examination of three legal terms – “jurisprudence,” “justice,” and “law” – will help us appreciate the variety of that linguistic legacy and the writing system with which it is associated, […]
A choice of two plurals - Posted by Frank Taylor on December 8, 2015 (updated February 25, 2017) The plural of most English nouns is formed simply by adding an -s or -es to the end,[1] but words that were borrowed from Latin and other languages “present some of the most troublesome aspects of English plurals.”[2]  For nouns that end with […]
“Neither a borrower nor a lender be . . .”: Language ignores the advice of Polonius - Posted by Frank Taylor on May 7, 2013 (updated August 14, 2016) William Shakespeare has received credit for many contributions to the English language.[1]  Those contributions include the advice that Polonius gave to his son Laertes in the play Hamlet:[2] Neither a borrower nor a lender be, For loan oft loses both itself and friend, […]
Orthography versus cacography in our writing - Posted by Frank Taylor on April 29, 2013 (updated March 26, 2016) The concurring opinion[1] by Justice Potter Stewart[2] in Jacobellis v. Ohio[3] provided one of the most memorable quotations from the Supreme Court of the United States.  Although Justice Stewart concluded that “criminal laws [against obscenity] are constitutionally limited to hard-core pornography,” he confessed […]

©Copyright Law Explorers Incorporated 2012-2013