Talk:Legal doublet

Sources

Is the expression "legal doublet" a recognised term? This is a handy list, but I beseech, implore and exhort the creator to come up with a source. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I could only find this weak example, so this is beginning to look bad. Clarityfiend (talk) 16:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

There's already a Doublet (linguistics), so maybe this should be merged there? Clarityfiend (talk) 16:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Linguistic doublets are words of the same ultimate etymological origin, which have come into a given language by different historical paths. Such words do not necessarily occur side-by-side in fixed phrases. And legal doublets are not necessarily linguistic doublets. Keep separate, please. AnonMoos (talk) 16:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Linguistic doublets are pairs with the same origin but often different meanings. Legal doublets are often pairs with different origins (e.g. English and Romance) but similar meanings, like deem and consider. —Tamfang (talk) 07:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's a recognized term, so perhaps it should be de-emphasized. The article could have been called "Characteristic doubling of words in legal language" or "Legal word doubling", and I think it would be fine if someone moved it to something along those lines. The phenomenon itself is worth an article no matter what it's called, IMO. It would be great if there was a linguistics journal article somewhere that's given it a canonical name. --Sean 19:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't help noticing that some of these "doublets" contain three items. Perhaps there are some "legal triplets" on the list? Jowa fan (talk) 10:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Like the other commenters here, I have never heard the term "Legal doublet" before... but I don't have a better term. Perhaps TotoBaggins, the original creator, would like to chime in here? NikolaiSmith (talk) 07:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Johndgregory (talk) 02:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC) Some of these are 'true' doublets, i.e. each one of the pair (or triplet, as Jowa fan notes) means the same, and some are not. 'Give, devise and bequeath' refers to three different methods of transferring property. 'give' may cover both, but devise means transfer land, and bequeath means transfer personal property on death.

Johndgregory (talk) 02:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC) 'to have and to hold' is not the same kind of thing, since both key words are of Germanic/English origin. Most of the linguistic doublets are English/French, for historical reasons. French being the language of the ruling classes from 1066 till about 1400, it was the official language of the courts, so lawyers needed to know it. 'to have and to hold' sounds much more like a standard Anglo-Saxon (Old English) doublet, like 'might and main', 'hack and hew', 'wind and water', 'horse and hound'. Also, they don't mean the same thing: one goes to ownership, the other to possession, concepts that lawyers learn to distinguish early in their education.

Doublets arose in English law to provide meaning to both the English and French (Norman). To quote above "Most of the linguistic doublets are English/French, for historical reasons. French being the language of the ruling classes from 1066 till about 1400"

With time the French forms have been slightly anglicized. For example "break and entre" has become "break and enter". The first word is English and the second French. Legal doublets are not the same as the other doublet page.

"Aid and abeter"

"Assault and battre"

"Break and entre" 2001:1970:5164:3D00:B0BE:BA0F:7ADB:3832 (talk) 01:40, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

intents and purposes

Should the phrase "intents and purposes" be on this list? - Rainwarrior (talk) 04:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes. NikolaiSmith (talk) 07:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Signed, sealed and delivered

These words are not similar - they are three separate acts necessary, at common law, for an enforceable document known as a "deed" to be effective. The common law has been changed in most places, and in the United States deeds are rarely used. A deed is a document similar to a written contract, but it does not need to have the consideration required for a contract. It is enforceable against the person who made it. At common law, in order for the deed to become binding, you had to:

1. sign it (with a handwritten signature);
2. seal it (generally done with a wax seal, but there were other mechanisms); and
3. deliver it (give it to the person who will be entitled to enforce it).

In modern times, statute law in most places allow the document to just say it is sealed, and if so it is taken by law to be sealed.

The use of the phrase "signed, sealed and delivered" outside the context of a deed is a misuse of the term amounting to a mere flourish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.120.16.133 (talk) 05:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

"day and age"?

It's not in the list, but is it one of them? It's a Germanic + Romance pairing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.127.236 (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

"Near synonyms"

Many of the example are not near synonyms. Should hey be removed, or is the definition wrong? All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC).

@Rich Farmbrough: (belatedly...) I agree this is a problem. The definition, based on the cited refs' examples, does seem to entail being near-synonyms, not just the legalese subset of "irreversible binomial". I removed "search and seizure" (the differential meaning is not really subtle or legalistic). DMacks (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree and fixed the article. I like to saw logs! (talk) 07:13, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Expressed or implied

How is it a legal doublet, it is not synonym at all???Hhgygy (talk) 22:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree and fixed the article lead. I like to saw logs! (talk) 07:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Checks and balances

Is this a legal doublet? If so, it should be included. SmilingFace (talk) 14:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Preventing disputes?

It seems to me that using more than one word in such situations might have been a means of denying or discouraging disputes over shades of meaning - i.e. giving the impression "This formulation covers ALL possible shades of meaning, therefore there can be no grounds for dispute", whether that impression was strictly true or merely a bluff. TooManyFingers (talk) 06:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)