What’s it to you?

So lately grammar, its metamorphosis, something like K's Metamorphoses, has become de rigueur. I wrote about it in the more conventional sense in my last month's Daily Journal column and owned up to past transgressions. And yes, in that mea culpa column, I distinguished between "verses" and "versus" and deliberately wrote "verses, like in poetry." When you are talking to someone and you want to be emphatic about an obvious point, are you going to say, "verses, as in poetry, my good man?" Granted I was writing, but this was more like speaking to a dolt, "like in poetry..." unsaid, but implied in tone, "dummy." I acknowledge that Fowler's A Dictionary of Modern English, second edition, Oxford University Press, is not too keen on the use of "like" instead of the proper "as." Fowler acknowledges however, that the Oxford English dictionary gives examples of writers of "standing," like, I mean as Shakespeare, Southey, Newman and others have used "like" instead of "as." And if you are so inclined, take a look at Hebrews 2:17 King James Version, "...it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren." This proves the lengths to which I will go to defend myself. One would think this column was an opinion I authored.

A long time ago a nationwide television commercial that appeared on our black-and- white 12-inch screen, and which could be heard on radio and read in print, was the slogan, "Winston tastes good like a cigarette should." They left out the part that it could cause cancer, emphysema, and a host of other debilitating illnesses. What an uproar. But not among the populace. And Merriam-Webster's Third New International Dictionary wrote that use of the word "like" as a conjunction reflected popular usage. Colloquial is sociable, the anything- goes approach.

The New York Times roundly condemned this transgression. If only their current news stories got to the point. Perhaps too many lawyers and judges write in that style. But I digress. On second thought, let's put our discussion of "like" on hold for a moment and consider journalism vs. judicial opinions.

In the Jan. 4, 2019 issue of the Daily Journal, James P. McBride, an attorney in Alameda, wrote a short column entitled, Dear Justices: You have strayed from traditions of legal literature. His "JAccuse...!" addressed to justices, and this includes those on the Supreme Court: "You publish dense wordy decisions whereas your audience of practicing lawyers long for flesh and blood narrative. Please leave it to law professors, treatise writers, and law review students to put your decisions into perspective. Who has the time or the inclination to plod through exhaustive erudition that pours down week after week in the published decisions?" Mr. McBride bemoans how ponderous judicial opinions exhaust the reader's attention span. He concludes with this advice to justices, "[P]lease spare your audience voluminous law review style decisions. We would be better served with straightforward, concise decisions in the official reports." And I would add, those not in the official reports. I hear you Mr. McBride. I am doing my best.

Now, where were we? Oh yes, the word "like" in place of "as" in the Winston cigarette commercial. The hullabaloo was all the better for the tobacco company. I recall a Winston television commercial where two young college students on campus with the ivy covered building in the background saying to one another as they inhale the deadly tar and nicotine leading to a likely early death, "Winston tastes good, like a cigarette should." Just then, a college professor walks by. We know he is a professor because he is wearing a corduroy jacket with patches on the elbows, and he is smoking a pipe. He interjects with the correction, "as a cigarette should." The students laugh as the professor walks by, his head buried in the OED, the Oxford English Dictionary. In case you were not an English major I agree that in most instances, it is better not to use "like" as a substitute for "as." At least that is what I promised I would do over a steaming plate of Shepherd's Pie I shared with Henry Watson Fowler last night. It drives him nuts when I call him "Watson."

If you recall, in my last column I capitulated and agreed not to grouse about the use of "their" as the pronoun to refer back to a singular noun. Example: "A judge who stifles the urge to call an attorney a numbskull, remembers when they practiced law. Until we invent a gender-neutral pronoun, "their" replaces "he," or "she"; I mean "she" or "he."

But grammar is truly not the issue. The issue is recognizing human dignity. The CACI judicial Council Civil Jury Instructions 118, states, "It is the policy of the State of California that intersex, transgender, and nonbinary people are entitled to full legal recognition and equal treatment under the law. In accordance with this policy, attorneys and courts should take affirmative steps to ensure that they are using correct personal pronouns. To further this policy, these instructions have been expanded to include 'nonbinary pronoun' wherever appropriate." The instruction goes on to caution the court and attorneys to consult with the individual whose pronouns are being discussed to ensure the individual's "dignity and privacy is protected."

I recently agreed to review a chapter for a legal publication. The standard agreement that I was asked to sign contained a series of questions that asked me what my race was, my ethnicity, and whether I was a member of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and/or Transgender (LGBT) community. My first reaction was, what business is this of the publication? I cooled down when I realized the answers to these questions were optional. The goal was not to invade my privacy, but to honor any contributor's preferences. We are all adjusting to recognizing that all people have equal access to the opportunities our society offers without regard to their ethnicity or sexual orientation. I signed the agreement. Did I answer the optional questions? What's it to you?