Joan Best wrote: > Bob asked: > > > We didn't hear what Black's has to say about "marriage", but > > kindly note that the above says in regard to "intermarriage" that: > > "it is *sometimes* used" (emphasis added). Why only "sometimes"? > > and what occasioned the use of "intermarriage" or "marriage" in > > any give case? [quote from Black's 1951 edition.] > > > > I, for one, would appreciate a legal explanation of the above > > questions. > > Joan replies: > > Black's Law Dictionary has been around for several centuries and > relates to English law [US follows English law precedent except for > Louisiana] Which is French. > As most dictionaries, it changes over time. Does that statement "changes over time" suggest then that a 1951 Black's definition might not be applicable for the 1800-1860 timeframe? Do we need a Black's from 1851? For some strange reason, the context on these threads keeps getting lost, but the original question/context was and I quote: "Hi - In some of the early marriage records in Kentucky (1800-1860), it shows the word intermarriage between the two persons. Exactly what did that mean in that time period - does anyone know?" > Intermarry > is now rarely used. Two hundred years ago it was commonly used in > legal documents. Black's is used by lawyers to chose the right > modern term [and its spelling] and also to decipher older legal > terms no longer in common usage. Many legal terms, now infrequently > used, are from Latin, a language commonly taught in public schools > until the last half of the twentieth century, and the language > common to scholars in all countries for centuries. There was no mention of any Latin in the original question, only the definition of "intermarriage", an English word. > English now has > supplanted Latin in that regard. There has been a push, in the last > twenty-five years or so, in the profession, to use modern English > instead of legalese. Therefore, intermarriage is now rarely used. But the question refers to the 1800-1860 timeframe! > The definition indicates that its use may have distinguished between > those marriages in which both parties agreed to the marriage and > those in which the woman had no choice in the matter. Probably by > the time period [1700-1900] in which this term was commonly used > this distinction was commonly moot, i.e., of no effect. Is that your response to the question of why it was "sometimes" used? and is that your own speculation or can you cite a source? > A lawyer's secret: Most lawyers do not create each document that > they produce, from scratch. They use form books and other > documents, copying them, adapted to the case at hand. Thus legal > language and terms are perpetuated beyond common usage of the term. > [If the pleading, will, etc. worked before, why take a chance with > new language.] It's a "secret" though that is common knowledge.<g> > Hope this helps. > Joan B Thanks for trying. > "Joan Best" <joanbest@earthlink.net> Bob

>Bob, > >To put it more succinctly: Legal terms tend to persist in legal >documents long after the word is no part of the common vocabulary >AND long after the reason for using the term has lost its legal >validity. > >Black's Legal Dictionary includes archaic terms such as >intermarriage. I believe that Black's said, in 1951, that it was >"sometimes used" because it was a term that was nearing the end of >the following-out-of-usage process and was not "always used" or >"often used". It was "often used" in the time period inquired about >[1800-1860] and would have had a strict legal meaning, and therefore >"always used" with a precise legal meaning probably 200 years before >that. This is my [pretty well] educated guess, to answer another of >your questions. And by the way, "inter" is Latin, a demonstration >of one of the marvels of our language: we can easily combine words >of entirely different origins and create new meanings, one of the >great benefits, in the past, of studying Latin. > >"Joan Best" <joanbest@earthlink.net> Joan, with respect, who cares? This is no Family Law Conference, just a bunch of plain folks seeking practical advice on how to pursue their very interesting hobby of tracing kin. Finding all this intellectual posturing and irrelevancy tossed into my mail box every morning is becoming tedious. Thanks, Gil [ Without intending to comment on Joan's or anyone else's posts, I think we've pretty well exhausted the "intermarriage" topic. I'll approve any posts still in the queue, but in general I will NOT approve any posts on this topic after that. Thanks all, Mod ] Gil Hardwick <gruagach@highway1.com.au>