On precise words, and poetic-justice humour

There are certain words which I label as "precise", that is, their meaning cannot be qualified. You can't plonk in an adjective or an adverb, and you can't embellish them with redundant words.

Take "pregnant". A woman who is pregnant cannot be described as "a little/very/somewhat pregnant".

I would also say that it's just "noon" and "midnight", not "12 noon" and "12 midnight". Why? These are precise moments. Just before noon is 11.59am and just after that, it is 12.01pm. Where is the logic of sticking a "12" in front of noon? Likewise for midnight.

Certain words have been hijacked by marketing people. There is no such thing as a "free gift". A gift is a gift, period.

"Unique" means "there is no other" (ie, one of a kind). While every mother is entitled to think her child is unique, you can't say someone or something is "very unique". And you can't use this precise word to mean "special" or even "very special", or "unusual" or "untypical" (so long as there is at least one other). That is why this item that appeared on page one of The Straits Times last Tuesday (6 Sept) made no sense:

"The closure of Borders at Wheelock Place has affected the business of other tenants there. It is a quieter mall now but retail experts say the vacated space is an opportunity to bring in a unique anchor tenant." Huh? Anchor tenants by definition can't be one of a kind. They have to sell mass-produced things that ordinary people want to buy.
  
The law is supposed to embody precision in the use of words. So, I was surprised to see, in today's ST (9 Sept), in a report about a man and a woman "fighting" over custody of a dog, Justice V.K. Rajah being quoted as saying: "This is literally and figuratively a dogfight without merit."

The judge may have been trying to wax lyrical, to use a little hyperbole even, but he is no poetic justice. To say a dogfight is a literal one is just that -- a fight between two dogs... ie, the ones with four paws.

---------------------------------------

Which brings me to my humour section...

Q: What do you call a judge who metes out sentences in poetic verse?
A: Poetic Justice.

But are there real cases? Indeed, a Google search showed at least one such instance, and another of a judge having been impressed by the poetic effort of the accused before him!

Case No 1 (from the Daily Mail Online, 12 Nov 2010)

A car thief who wrote poems while waiting to be jailed was dealt poetic justice when a judge sentenced him in rhyming verse.

[The man] had spent three months on remand for car theft and driving offences when he wrote poems about his criminal past while awaiting his fate.

After reading a letter and a poem [which the 26-year-old man] had written, the judge jailed him for 20 months by telling him: "You are plainly an intelligent man and have written a poem about your position which I have read. I have this to say to you:

Right now you feel down.
You have got months to do.
Despite what you have done,
Let us hope the locked door,
Will make you more sure
not to come back for more."

[Hmmm. I don't think this judge's poetic effort puts him in the Shakespearean class. Oh, the wannabe muse before him was jailed for 20 months and banned from driving for two years.]

Case No 2 (from another British newspaper, The People, 19 Aug 2001)

A 23-year-old man accused of burglary who penned a 24-line poem to the judge escaped a jail term. The judge, described in the story as a confessed poet himself, said the man had a way with words.

The man had stole equipment from computer firms and pleaded for time to get over his drug addiction.

Here is an extract from his poem:

"The divine guidance of God is near;
let's make this one a better year.
I wish to show, for all to see,
how I can become a part of society."

[The man was referred for drug rehabilitation.]