JJVP wrote:Webster dictionary says " 3. : spoken rather than written <a verbal contract> " No interpretation necessary. A verbal contract is NOT a written contract. Therefore, verbal cannot be written.
Well, no; that’s a misreading. Dictionaries typically print the most common and accepted definitions in hierarchical order, most accepted to least accepted. Go back to definitions #1 and #2 in your own example. Absolutely nothing is mentioned regarding speech rather than writing until you get to Webster’s definition #3.
I’ll quote a few closing sources in a moment, but I’m with Steve that the argument is moot. However, I’ll note again that the law is very careful when it comes to use of the words “verbal,” “oral,” and “written.”
It really isn’t necessary to discuss this—even though you’ll get pushback on this Forum, and most gun forums, all day long if you call a handgun magazine a clip—so long as everyone clearly understands that the Texas Penal Code never uses the word “verbal” to mean “oral,” and that when referring to communication that requires differentiation, it always uses the words “oral” and “written.” I mentioned before that, in all of the Texas Penal Code, the actual word “verbal” is used only three times; and in all three instances it is referring to the use of words, period, without a distinction between oral and written.
Here’s another one, because the example of “verbal contract” is always the first one brought up. In the entirety of the Texas Business and Commerce Code, guess how many times the word “verbal” appears. Ready? You guessed it:
zero. The word “oral” is used in 16 of the Chapters for a total of 34 appearances.
So if the
manufacturer calls it a “
magazine,” not a “
clip,” why should we insist on calling it a “
clip”?
To me, that’s an impediment to our ability to read, understand, and convey the law the way it is written. I believe that was CWOOD’s initial point with this topic.
There is a very good reason that the law uses the term “oral” rather than “verbal” when it is specifically referring to spoken rather than written language, a reason that it carefully distinguishes between “oral” and “written.” It’s the same reason universities have “oral” and “written” exams, not “verbal” exams; and why you shouldn’t state on your resume that you have excellent verbal and written communication skills.
The reason is:
ambiguity.
“Verbal” comes from the Latin
verbalis, “consisting of words, relating to verbs”; built on the Latin noun
verbum, “word.”
The first definition of “verbal” in my 16-volume set of
The Oxford English Dictionary is: “Dealing in or with words, especially with mere words in contrast to things or realities.” Its first recorded use is in 1484, in William Caxton’s translation of
The Curiall: “
And allewaye emonge vs courtyours enfayned / we folowe more the names of thoffyces / than the droytes and ryghtes / we be verbal / or ful of wordes / and desyre more the wordes than the thynges...”
Read that out loud 10 times quickly and we’ll give you an honorary degree in Medieval English.
The use of “verbal” to mean the spoken word is newer, appearing about 100 years after “verbal” was in common use in the language to mean anything dealt with in words.
Anyone who’s taken English composition will likely groan when H.W. Fowler is mentioned, but his 1926 book,
A Dictionary of Modern English Usage—as well as all the editions since, including those edited by Ernest Gowers and R.W. Burchfield—is a mandatory reference work on the shelf of a writer. Here’s what Fowler had to say:
H.W. Fowler, [i][b]A Dictionary of Modern English Usage[/b][/i] (1926) wrote:Misuse of the word [verbal] in the sense proper to oral...is very common, and is to be deprecated: ‘The Attorney General said it was really a point of no substance; the object of the provision was to apply it to all contracts, whether in writing or verbal’. Verbal meaning of or in words, oral meaning of or with the mouth, and words being as much used in writing as in speaking, it is obviously foolish to say ‘in words’ (verbal) when the sense wanted is ‘in spoken words’ (oral); and, though ambiguity may not result in a particular case, and Mr. Attorney may be acquitted of it, each use of the wrong word makes ambiguity more likely in the ordinary layman’s talk.
More recent:
[i][b]The Associated Press Stylebook[/b][/i], 39th Edition (2004) wrote:oral, verbal, written Use oral to refer to spoken words: He gave an oral promise.
Use written to refer to words committed to paper: We had a written agreement.
Use verbal to compare words with some other form of communication: His tears revealed the sentiments that his poor verbal skills could not express.
Theodore M. Bernstein, [i][b]The Careful Writer: A Modern Guide to English Usage[/b][/i] (1980) wrote:Although it is true that verbal means in the form of words, and has even taken over the specialized meaning of in the form of spoken words, it cannot be denied that much would be gained in the cause of precision if writers would use oral when they mean spoken words and written when they mean words committed to paper. Verbal might well be confined to those situations in which it is desired to distinguish communication by words from other forms of communication like gestures, smoke signals, and the light that shines from lovers’ eyes. To speak of a verbal agreement may leave some doubt whether the agreement was made in conversation or signed in a lawyer’s office. Confronted with a choice between a word that can mean two things and another that can mean only one, are we not making better use of the tools of language if we select the precise word?
Bryan Garner, [i][b]A Dictionary of Modern American Usage[/b][/i] (1998) wrote:verbal = (1) of, relating to, or expressed in words, whether written or oral; or (2) of, relating to, or expressed through the spoken word; oral. Many regard sense 2 as a slipshod extension. In fact, given the primary sense, the movie producer Samuel Goldwyn wasn’t really very ironic when he remarked, “A verbal contract isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.” After all, a written contract is verbal. The phrase requires oral.
The error is especially acute when verbal is opposed to written—e.g.: “Take care with words, verbal [read oral] and written.” Sydney Omarr, “Horoscope,” Wash. Post, 22 June 1997, at F2.
Take care indeed!
Wilson Follett and Jacques Barzun, [i][b]Modern American Usage: a Guide[/b][/i] (1966) wrote:verbal means relating to words without specifying whether the words are spoken or written. Consequently, the common phrase verbal agreement to mean one that is not written down is a misnomer. The proper term is oral agreement—oral meaning by [word of] mouth. To capture and preserve the distinction, this or oral exam and verbal aptitude test.
I liked CWOOD’s original metaphor to put it in perspective:
CWOOD wrote:An analogy might be to compare pistol, revolver, handgun, and firearm. All pistols, revolvers and handguns are firearms, but not all firearms are pistols, revolvers or handguns.
All oral and written communication involving the use of words is, by definition, verbal. But not all verbal communication is oral.
It is not wrong to use “verbal” in casual conversation in place of “oral.” But the law is careful to make that distinction because “oral communication” is a more specific, unambiguous term than is “verbal communication.”
If we understand the reason the laws are written the way they are, when we’re discussing the law it makes good sense to me to use “verbal,” “oral,” and “written” in exactly the same way as does the text of the law.
Any questions?
