Pellucid (pronounced puh-loo-sid)
(1) Allowing
the maximum passage of light, as glass; transparent; translucent; non-opaque.
(2) Clear;
limpid.
(3) In fashion, a see through fabric or a garment made of such (used loosely also of many which are semi-opaque and thus technically subpellucid).
(4)
Easily recognized or seen through; apparent, obvious (archaic).
(5) By
extension, of music or some other sound: not discordant or harsh; clear and
pure-sounding (technical use only in composition, academic study or criticism).
(6)
Figuratively, clear in meaning, expression, or style; not obscure.
(7)
Figuratively, of a person, able to think and understand clearly; not confused,
perspicacious (now rare).
(8) In
anatomy, as "zona pellucida" (the plural: zonae pellucidae or zonæ pellucidæ), a
glycoprotein membrane surrounding the plasma membrane of an oocyte.
1610-1620:
A learned borrowing from the Latin pellūcidus,
a variant of perlūcidus (transparent,
pellucid; very bright, radiant; very understandable), from perlūcēre (to shine through), the construct being per- (as a prefix,
“through; throughout; completely, thoroughly”), from the primitive
Indo-European root per- (forward,
hence “through”) + lūcēre or lūcidus (clear; full of light, bright,
shining (and figuratively “easily understood, clear, lucid”)), from lūceō (to shine; to become visible, show
through (and figuratively “to be apparent, conspicuous, or evident”)). The construct of the Latin lucidus was understood as lux (light), ultimately from the
primitive Indo-European lewk-
(bright; to see; to shine) + -idus
(the suffix forming adjectives conveying the sense “tending towards”). The construct in English may thus be
understood as pe(r) +-l- + lucid (see through).
The (now rare) noun was derived from the adjective. In technical use, the preferred word to
convey the idea of “somewhat pellucid; tending toward pellucidness” appears to
be subpellucid (along with the derived subpellucidly & subpellucidness, all
sometimes hyphenated) rather than semi-pellucid, quasi-pellucid, or other
possibilities. The comparative is “more
pellucid” and the superlative “most pellucid”).
Pellucid is a noun & adjective, pellucidness & pellucidity are
nouns and pellucidly is an adverb; the noun plural is pellucids. Pellucid and its derivatives are good words
and should be used, just not by lawyers.
The pellucid water of Flathead Lake, Montana USA.
“These wells were filled with water, and with a blue light, celestial in
its loveliness,—a light ethereal and pellucid.” (Over the Rocky Mountains to Alaska
(1914) by Charles Warren Stoddard (1843-1909)).
In literary and poetic use, one will sometimes find “pellucid waters”
but the word seem too obscure for advertizing copy-writers who, seeking pellucidity,
prefer “crystal clear” although the once uncommon “azure” seems to have become
sufficient familiar for the bays of the Mediterranean or Caribbean to be called
“azure blue waters”.
Although there are a few which are designed to be eye-catching, the extensive use the industry makes of pellucid (see-through) fabrics mostly is barely noticed because typically the application is either (1) only subpellucid, (2) covering non-sexualized body-parts such as arms or (3) as an overlay designed to highlight or subtly alter the color or texture of the fabric with which what lies beneath is made. One intriguing tradition exploiting a fabric’s quality of pellucidly which has endured despite the unpromising origin is the bride’s wedding veil. Historically, the idea of the veil was to conceal the bride’s appearance from the groom until the priest had pronounced the couple man & wife, thereby having joined together in the name of God what “let no man tear asunder”. The functional advantage was as a precaution against a groom finding grounds for rejecting his betrothed in those once not uncommon cases where the ceremony was the first time the two had met, the arrangements having been hammered out by the often distant families, sometimes years in advance. The point at which the bride was unveiled and the priest spoke the words: “You may now kiss the bride” which, in the cases of arranged marriages, actually meant: “You’re stuck with her mate; good luck.” Even in times gone by however, most brides and grooms were well known to each other (“known” sometimes in the Biblical sense, thus the need for sometimes hastily arranged marriages) but the veil became a popular part of a bride’s ensemble and still they’re sometimes used.
In most
parts of the English-speaking world, in recent decades there have been attempts
to ensue “plain English” is used in legislation and legal documents. It’s an admirable goal for many reasons but
perhaps the most obvious is a contribution to increased compliance with laws,
simply because pellucidness in wording would decrease the risk of unintentional
breaches of law and legal obligations, at least some of which are the
consequences of misunderstanding; as an example, a word like pellucid should
not appear in legal documents because it is little-known and rare. Using sentences plain in meaning and
unambiguous even to those without legal training improves communication which increases
information, thereby reducing the need for interpreters (lawyers), thereby decreasing
the costs associated with the administration and application of legislation and
other legal documents. Those fond of
conspiracy theories like to find in the difficult language a sort of
job-creation programme for lawyers but it was really a product of the power of precedent,
the phrases and terms of law, many still in their original Latin, having gained
a certainty of meaning and thus maintained for generation after
generation. Language itself also had
some inertia, the idea of a “legal style” of writing soon entrenched as
“correct” and maintained by law schools and practitioners.
Lindsay Lohan and her lawyer in Court, Los Angeles, December 2011.
The matter for a long had attracted the interest of reformers in the law and parliaments but began to coalesce as a movement in the post-war years and this may at least have been influenced by the extent to which the increasing volume of laws passed by modern states were starting to intrude on the lives of more citizens, most of whom historically had little direct contact with legislation unless they came to the attention of the police. In 1950, when sitting as a Lord of Appeal, the English judge Lord Radcliffe (1899–1977) observed what as early as 1913 had come to be called “legalese” had become: “…a sort of hieratic language… by which the priests incant the commandments. I seem to see the ordinary citizen today standing before the law like the laity in a medieval church: at the far end the lights glow, the priestly figures move to and fro, but it is in an unknown tongue that the great mysteries of right and wrong are proclaimed.” He concluded by asking: “...what willing allegiance can a man owe to a canon of obligation which is not even conceived in such a form as to be understood?”
It was a reasonable question, even if phrased in a way many would find as arcane as the object of his Lordship’s critique it wasn’t until the 1970s that law reform commissions and others began to circulate discussion papers and proposals The rationale was encapsulated in one fragment in the decision handed down by Lord Donaldson (1920–2005; Master of the Rolls 1982-1992) in Merkur Island Shipping Corp v Laughton [1983]1 All ER 334: “The efficacy and maintenance of the rule of law, which is the foundation of any parliamentary democracy, has at least two prerequisites. First people must understand that it is in their interests, as well as in that of the community as a whole, that they should live their lives in accordance with the rules and all the rules. Second they must know what those rules are.” In the 1990s, reform of language began to happen at scale and there was in this an element of technological determinism, the digitization of legislation and codes meaning texts ancient and modern began to appear on the screens of word processors, making modernization a simpler process.
No comments:
Post a Comment