Versus

Versus (pronounced vur-suhs or vur-suhz)

(1) Against, used especially to indicate an action brought by one party against another in a court of law, or to denote competing teams or players in a sporting contest.

(2) As compared to or as one of two (or more) choices; as alternative to; in contrast with.

1400–1450: From the Late Middle English, from the Latin versus (facing; literally “towards” ie “turned so as to face (something), opposite, over against) and originally the past participle of vertere (to turn, change, overthrow, destroy), from the primitive Indo-European wert- (to turn, wind) from the root *wer (to turn, bend).  Versus is a preposition, the accepted abbreviations are “v” & “vs”.  The Latin vertere being a word of conflict, it’s been predictably productive in English.  In psychology, ambivert & ambiversion were coined in 1927 to describe a "person exhibiting features of an extrovert and an introvert.  Advert was an adaptation of the mid-fifteenth century averten (to turn (something) aside) from the twelfth century Old French avertir (later advertir) (to turn, direct; turn aside; make aware, inform) from the Latin advertere (turn toward, turn to).  English restored the -d- in the sixteenth century.  Versus is a preposition.

Averse was a mid-fifteenth century form meaning "turned away in mind or feeling, disliking, unwilling", from the Old French avers (hostile, antagonistic) and directly from the Latin aversus (turned away, turned back), past participle of avertere (to direct one's attention to; give heed, literally "to turn toward”).  Averse in English is used almost exclusively in the mental sense, while averted is applied to physical acts.  Advertise was from the early fifteenth century advertisen (to take notice of (a sense now obsolete)), from the Old French advertiss-, present-participle stem of the twelfth century advertir (the earlier form was avertir) (make aware, call attention, remark; turn, turn to), again from the Latin advertere.  The mid-fifteenth century transitive sense of "give notice to others, inform, warn; make clear or manifest" was by influence of advertisement; the specific commercial meaning "call attention to goods for sale, rewards, etc" not in use until the late eighteenth century.  The idea of the adversary (unfriendly opponent, enemy) emerged originally in religious writing as a descriptor of Satan as the enemy of man.  It was from the mid-fourteenth century aduersere (hostile opponent, enemy), from the thirteenth century Anglo-French adverser and the twelfth century Old French adversarie (which in Modern French is adversaire), from the Latin adversarius (an opponent, rival, enemy) the noun use of the adjective meaning "opposite, hostile, contrary.  The Classical Latin was glossed in Old English by wiðerbroca.

The verso (reverse, back, or other side of some object," especially a printed page or book) dates from 1839 and was from the Latin verso (folio), ablative singular neuter of versus, past participle of vertere (to turn).  Retroversion was first noted in the 1580s in the sense of a “tilting or turning backward" noun of action or state from the Latin retroversus (turned or bent backwards).  The late fourteenth century controversy (disputation, debate, prolonged agitation of contrary opinions) was from the from Old French controversie (quarrel, disagreement" from the Latin controversia (a turning against; contention, quarrel, dispute), from controversus (turned in an opposite direction, disputed, turned against), the construct being contra "against" + versus (turned toward or against), past participle of vertere.  Vice versa (the order being changed) dates from circa 1600, the construct being vice, ablative of vicis (a change, alternation, alternate order) + versa, feminine ablative singular of versus, past participle of vertere.  The Century Dictionary notes the phrase has the “complete force of a proposition”, meaning “a transposition of antecedents, the consequents also transposed".

Sinister, the idea being the left being opposite the right is also involved.  When, in 1856, botanists needed a word to describe the direction of spiral structures in nature, they coined the adjective sinistrorse, from the Latin sinistrorsus (toward the left side), the construct being sinister (left) + versus (turned), past participle of vertere.  It was paired with dextrorse but, in the pre-internet age, communication between scientists in different places was slow or limited and confusion arose about what was the proper point of view to reckon leftward or rightward spiraling, both interpretations used and documented as sinistrorse.  It limited the utility of the word.  Universe dates from the 1580s in the sense of "the whole world, cosmos, the totality of existing things", from the twelfth century Old French univers, from the Latin universum "all things, everybody, all people, the whole world," noun use of the neuter of the adjective universus (all together, all in one, whole, entire, relating to all, literally "turned into one), from unus (one (from the primitive Indo-European root oi-& no- (one, unique)) + versus, past participle of vertere.

The word verse came from late Old English, replacing the earlier Old English fers which was an early West Germanic borrowing directly from Latin and meant "line or section of a psalm or canticle" which by the fourteenth century had extended to "line of poetry", from the Anglo-French and Old French vers (line of verse; rhyme, song), from the Latin versus (a line, row, line of verse, line of writing), again from the primitive Indo-European wer-.  The metaphor is of plowing, of "turning" from one line to another, in the sense of vertere (to turn) as the plowman does at the end of each furrow.  The New Testament in English translation was first divided fully into verses in the 1550s Geneva version.  The metrical composition dates from circa 1300 but, perhaps surprisingly, as the non-repeating part of a modern song (ie the text which exists between repetitions of the chorus), verse wasn’t used until 1918.  That was noted in the book Negro Folk-Songs (1918) by US ethno-musicologist Natalie Curtis Burlin (1875-1921) which documented the traditions and forms of what used to be called “negro spirituals”.  Seemingly for the first time, the structure was defined as consisting of "chorus and verses, the chorus being a melodic refrain sung by all which opens the song; then follows a verse sung as a solo, in free recitative; the chorus then repeated; then another verse, the chorus again and so on until the chorus, sung for the last time, ends the song.”

In law reporting, versus, and, & against

Carbolic Smoke Ball Company’s offer to the whole world.

In the English speaking world, in the reporting of legal actions which reach the stage of being filed by a court register (or equivalent), the convention is that the first party named is the plaintiff (appellant) and the second the defendant (respondent).  So, in the famous case in English contract law of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (1892, EWCA Civ 1) before the Court of Appeal, Mrs Carlill was the appellant and the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company the respondent.  The carbolic smoke ball case remains interesting because it established in English law the principle that advertisements offering something can constitute a binding contract even if the person claiming to have entered the contact hasn’t advised the author of the offer of their intent to perform the acts required in the terms of the offer.

Doubling down: The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company wasn't discouraged by the loss in the Court of Appeal, subsequently increasing both the reward to £200 and the small print to discourage claims.

During the deadly influenza pandemic in the northern winter of 1889-1890, the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company it would pay £100 (equivalent to some £12,000 in 2021) to anyone who became ill with influenza after using their smoke ball in accordance with the instructions enclosed with the product.  Mrs Carlill was concerned enough by the flu to buy a ball which, following the instructions, she used thrice daily for some weeks but nevertheless, caught the flu.  Unable to persuade the company to pay her £100, Mrs Carlill brought an action, in court claiming a contract existed which the company denied.  At first instance, despite being represented by a future prime-minister, the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company lost, a verdict upheld unanimously by the Court of Appeal.  It was a landmark in the development of contract law, refining the long-established principles of (1) offer, (2) acceptance, (3) certainty of terms and (4) payment although, it would be decades before the implications would begin comprehensively to be realized in legislation.  Not only did Mrs Carlill secure her £100 but she survived the pandemic, living to the age of ninety-six.  On 10 March 1942, she died after catching influenza.

In the UK and most of the Commonwealth, civil cases are reported in the form of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company but in oral use spoken as Carlill and Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (although for notorious cases like this, an informal shorthand such as “carbolic” or “carbolic smoke” usually emerges).  Where a proceeding does not have formally designated adverse parties, the construct becomes “In the matter of”, spoken and written usually as “In re” or, more commonly “Re”.  In the US, the written form is the same for civil and criminal proceedings but when spoken, the “v” or “vs” is pronounced “vee” or “versus”.  Neither system appears helpful and it would be an improvement if both could agree to use “and” and “against” as required and write them in that form too.  It will never happen.

Criminal matters are written using the same convention but the “v” is spoken as “against”.  In Fagan v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis (969 1 QB 439) a defendant’s conviction, for refusing to move his car after having inadvertently reversed over a policeman’s foot, was upheld.  Absurd as the facts of the case turned out to be, it was a useful illustration of the relevant legal principles.  In criminal law, there’s the requirement that both actus reus (act) and mens rea (intention) be present for a crime to take place.  Fagan argued that when he made the actus reus, because it was an accident, he had no men’s rea, but when he obtained mens rea, there was no corresponding actus reus.  There have been philosophers who would have found the logic of that compelling but the judges proved earthier, ruling that while omission cannot establish an assault, the actus reus of driving onto the foot and deciding to remain there constituted a continuing criminal act which was present when the mens rea occurred.  Mr Fagan’s conviction thus stood.

In the matter of Grand Theft Auto (GTA5): Lindsay Lohan v Take-Two Interactive Software Inc et al, New York Court of Appeals (No 24, pp1-11, 29 March 2018)

In a case which took an unremarkable four years from filing to reach New York’s highest appellate court, Lindsay Lohan’s suit against the makers of video game Grand Theft Auto V was dismissed.  In a unanimous ruling in March 2018, six judges of the New York Court of Appeals rejected her invasion of privacy claim which alleged one of the game’s characters was based on her.  The judges found the "actress/singer" in the game merely resembled a “generic young woman” rather than anyone specific.  Unfortunately the judges seemed unacquainted with the concept of the “basic white girl” which might have made the judgment more of a fun read.

Beware of imitations: The real Lindsay Lohan and the GTA 5 ersatz, a mere "generic young woman".

Concurring with the 2016 ruling of the New York County Supreme Court which, on appeal, also found for the game’s makers, the judges, as a point of law, accepted the claim a computer game’s character "could be construed a portrait", which "could constitute an invasion of an individual’s privacy" but, on the facts of the case, the likeness was "not sufficiently strong".  The “… artistic renderings are an indistinct, satirical representation of the style, look and persona of a modern, beach-going young woman... that is not recognizable as the plaintiff" Judge Eugene Fahey wrote in his ruling.  Ms Lohan’s lawyers did not seek leave to appeal.