A law professor e-mailed me this (prompted by my Correcting Students’ Usage Errors Without Making Errors of Our Own:
Over the years, I have tried to get students to use “garnishee” as a verb, as in “to garnishee an employee’s wages” rather than to garnish wages. I say “to garnish wages” is to sprinkle parsley but even as I say it I think I sound pedantic. Any thoughts?
Here's what I said in response: I don’t teach in the field, so my judgment might not be good here; but I’ve always much preferred “garnish.” True, “garnish” is also used for food, but English speakers are quite familiar with words that have vastly different meanings; no-one really thinks even for a moment about the limbs of forest animals, for instance, when they hear about “bear arms.” So I doubt that “garnish” is even distracting. And garnish certainly isn’t wrong: The Oxford English Dictionary attests it to 1577 (three centuries earlier than “garnishee” as a verb), and Black’s of course lists it as well.
What’s more, “garnishee” strikes me as sounding too much like a noun based on the verb, much as “employee” or “mortgagee.” At first, that’s all I thought it was; some years ago, I learned that it is indeed used as a verb, but it still sounds unpleasant to my ears (though again I stress that this isn’t my field).
But rather than just relying on my ear, let me suggest that we go with Horace, and follow “the will of custom, in whose power is the decision and right and standard of language.” A Westlaw search for ((garnish garnished) +5 wages) & date(> 1/1/2000) reports 675 hits, seemingly (from looking at the first page) almost entirely genuine and not false positives. A search for ((garnishee garnisheed) +5 wages) & date(> 1/1/2000) reports 23 hits. One of those is labeled “[sic],” and 12 use “garnishee” as a noun and not a verb (e.g., “orders the garnishee to withhold attachable wages”). So it looks like there are only 11 hits (one condemnatory, because of the “sic”) for “garnishee” as a verb, as compared to 675 for “garnish.”
That, I think, strongly counsels against the “garnishee” usage. Some people, such as the “sic”ing court (the Second Circuit), might think “garnishee” is wrong. And others who understand and accept the usage would still likely be distracted.
So it seems to me that students are better off learning to use the familiar and broadly accepted “garnish,” notwithstanding the possible (but in my view unlikely) association this may briefly create in the reader’s mind with parsley, rather than the much rarer “garnishee.”
I'm pleased to report that my correspondent e-mailed me back to say that this argument "convinced [him] to go back to garnish as a verb." What do you think?
Related Posts (on one page):
- Horace Comes to Law School:
- Horace and Google:
Well, no one except comedians/comedy writers.
However, in a lot of situations, as the perennial issue of whether or not to avoid split infinitives, I think it's probably better to err on the side of siding with the non-split infinitive pedants. The non-pedants probably don't care enough to be offended whereas the pedants probably care too much.
Such overwhelmingly rare usages have two problems. One is that the current of usage would appear to have already carved the new meaning. The other is that is like citing Latin - either the Judge (or whatever reader you are writing for) won't understand it and will feel annoyed or condescended to, or they will understand it better than you. The latter is far worse, especially if it is a Court of Criminal Appeals Judge who responds to your Latin quote I have ever since abjured in formal use any language I was not conversant in.
I stopped reading after arriving at this disobedient, species-ist twisting of the 2A.
We have the right to "keep". And anybody who tries to take away "bear arms" will have to pry them from their cold paws.
The "and" does mean something... duh.
.
.
.
Oh, and I'd like a nice cilantro pico de gallo garnish with my bear steak, thanks.
This begs the question, i.e., it takes as a given that the pedantic usage is the "correct" usage. The WHOLE ISSUE is -- what is the correct usage? Prescriptivists always miss that point.
Exactly. And if he wants to avoid confusion, why substitute a more confusing word?
I am efforting to understand why anybody would be opposed to this construction.
I grew up hearing "garnishee" used as both, but that may be regional. Sometimes the verb was pronounced "garnishAY", and the noun "garnishEE".
There are many words regularly used as either noun or verb without confusion. The syntactical context usually makes the meaning clear. Usually an article "a" or "the" will make the distinction very clear for "garnishee".
Just hypothetically: "Plaintiff pines for an order to garnishee defendant's wages in payment of judgment for defendant's damage to plaintiff's pines. Plaintiff has shown that the garnishee is defendant's employer."
Irony intended?
Are bears four-legged or are they forearmed? If they are forearmed, is it because they were forewarned?
Maybe we should ask the President; he's from Chicago. There's lots of Bears in Chicago, but I'm certain that in Chicago they're unarmed. So bears must have four legs and no arms.
No wonder the Bears have had such a hard time finding a quarterback.
Again, speaking only for myself, "garnish" is tied to food in my head and the first thing that comes to mind is still parsley when someone says "garnish wages." It's kind of like pig latin for the people who know the code but don't ever use it--I understand but there's an extra mental step in there.
Exactly. If garnisheed wasn't already considered archaic, surely the Fletch line -- "Now, I can't have my wages garnisheed" -- rendered it the subject of derision for at least a generation. (Apologies if I have the line slightly wrong.)
Heaven forfend.
Newspapers in the late 1800's and early 1900's used "indorsement" as the standard spelling. Beginning that word with an "e" did not happen in that time period. I'm sure it was jarring for those educated in that time period when the misspelling as "endorsement" first got by the editors.
Here in New York, the CPLR uses "garnish". A "garnishee" is a person on whom a garnishment order is served.
Your childhood sounds interesting, if troubled.
With regard to looking at the law, Colorado's court forms use "garnishee" solely as a noun, but make only limited use of "garnish" as a verb, using it only in the past tense and only rarely (e.g., "The earnings garnished are pension or retirement benefits") while perferring to use the word "garnishment" whenever possible.
Two other similar issues that I've seen discussed are:
(1) plead guilty v. pleaded guilty (AP newspaper standard prefer the latter), as past tense of "plea."
(2) Testator v. Testatrix. This gender distinction in titles was the historically correct terminology (as well as several related terms like Executor v. Executrix), but the Uniform Probate Code uses the male form as a unisex form for all of them (and abolishes "executor" entirely in favor of "personal representative.") Colorado is a UPC state, so I use the unisex form.
Sigh.
It was NEVER "correctly" regarded as a grammatical error, because it IS NOT AND NEVER WAS a grammatical error. Nor is ending a sentence with a preposition a grammatical error (though it IS something up with which pedants have a difficult time putting).
Parsley that has been *sprinkled* is not a garnish, at least not as commonly understood. A garnish is usually a sprig of herbs or a slice of fruit on the side of a plate or dish of food, not what is sprinkled on top. For example, when they grate fresh Parmesan on your pasta at Italian restaurants, they are *not* garnishing your dish with cheese. But when you order the rack of lamb and the plate has a few sprigs of rosemary on the side, hey, that's a garnish.
So Prof. Volokh's colleauge is going to be pedantic about it, he should at least understand the common meaning of the definition he doesn't like.
Well, no one except comedians/comedy writers.
Or T-shirt makers.
It is true that this is how language evolves; it is also irrelevant. A successful language has conserving institutions to preserve its usefulness as a medium of communication and a store of meaning. High among these conserving institutions are the acasemy and the learned professions. If we were to abandon our responsibilities to enforce precision in the use of words, we would be abandoning our civilization to a kind of modern punishment of Babel, in which the people would be scattered in lonely confusion, unable to communicate.
Because as things stand now, people are remarkably clearheaded, cohesive, and concise. Right?
Where do you stand on use of the subjunctive and "less versus fewer." ("Less" rather than "fewer" when talking about that which is discrete or numberable always grates on my ear.)
The non-legal meaning of "garnish" does not just refer to food -- "garnish" can also be a verb or noun referring to any kind of decoration, ornamentation, embellishment, etc.. In fact, some people do not like the bitter taste of a sprig of parsley and so they assume it is just a decoration.
BTW, I have proposed that Darwinists hire process servers to serve process on school boards to initiate lawsuits complaining that calling evolution a "theory" violates the establishment clause because the colloquial meaning of "theory" is different from the scientific meaning.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.