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.