In my experience the worst offenders are non-con lawyers, so full of resentment at the obvious crushing boredom of their existence that they seize any available opportunity to have a "play litigators" play date and unleash years of pent-up frustration. Add into the mix those lawyers beyond their shelf life who dabble in various areas of law and have little, if any, understanding of litigation and how to conduct it
This translated into the world of EU negotiations, in the form of a code:
"I am confused" = "That was rubbish & I don't agree"
"I am surprised" - "That was complete rot & it would take a miracle for me to agree"
"I am astounded (or even "bouleverse"" = "That was unacceptable and I could never agree it"
Of course, you could also remove your headphones (for the translation) while the other representative was speaking. A useful tactic if you know the language in which the person is speaking, but risky if not.
I miss those days....Generally productive.
Linguistic overkill seems more prevalent than a few decades ago.
The same syndrome occurs in other professions. In a former (working) life I used to assess and make recommendations on the validity of civil engineering contractor's claims. The longer the initial notice of claim from the contractor outlining the grounds for the claim, the less likely the majority of the claim was to be wholly valid. The one page initial notice was usually straightforward and the majority of the claim clearly valid.
Indeed almost in any walk of life. When I write an angry letter I revise the first draft by taking out almost all adjectives and fancy language. And write in short sentences and paragraphs.
In my experience the worst offenders are non-con lawyers, so full of resentment at the obvious crushing boredom of their existence that they seize any available opportunity to have a "play litigators" play date and unleash years of pent-up frustration. Add into the mix those lawyers beyond their shelf life who dabble in various areas of law and have little, if any, understanding of litigation and how to conduct it
This translated into the world of EU negotiations, in the form of a code:
"I am confused" = "That was rubbish & I don't agree"
"I am surprised" - "That was complete rot & it would take a miracle for me to agree"
"I am astounded (or even "bouleverse"" = "That was unacceptable and I could never agree it"
Of course, you could also remove your headphones (for the translation) while the other representative was speaking. A useful tactic if you know the language in which the person is speaking, but risky if not.
I miss those days....Generally productive.
Linguistic overkill seems more prevalent than a few decades ago.
The same syndrome occurs in other professions. In a former (working) life I used to assess and make recommendations on the validity of civil engineering contractor's claims. The longer the initial notice of claim from the contractor outlining the grounds for the claim, the less likely the majority of the claim was to be wholly valid. The one page initial notice was usually straightforward and the majority of the claim clearly valid.
Indeed almost in any walk of life. When I write an angry letter I revise the first draft by taking out almost all adjectives and fancy language. And write in short sentences and paragraphs.
Exactly right Alison. Well said.