[quote=“Acsenray, post:11, topic:588967”]
It is far too common for laypersons to pass around fantastical stories of etymology that have no basis in actual scholarship. My experience tells me that if you have a “good story” about the origin of a word, it’s almost always too good to be true. It’s the boring scholarship that presents in dry word chains that’s more credible.
And specifically –
- Your distinction between “real property” and “real estate” doesn’t really make sense. It’s obvious that the two phrases are related. It’s quite unlikely that the “real” in “real property” came from “res” whereas the “real” in “real estate” came from “real.”
Thank you for pointing out the poor construction of my reply. What I intended to point out was that the word “estate” is entirely different from the word “property.” I’m sorry I didn’t make that point more clearly. If we were to refer to something as “real property.” the explanation, as given by Wikipedia is that “real” refers to a “thing.” So what Wikipedia is saying is that when we say “real estate,” we’re saying “thing estate.” Interesting, but not convincing. Moreover, the point I failed to make clear was that the word “estate,” differs from the word"property." “Property” is a “thing.” “Estate,” is defined by Wikipedia as “…legal rights, interests and entitlements to property…” If we were to put the English word “real” in front of the above definition, we get: “real legal rights, interests and entitlements to property.” This just doesn’t make sense. However if we put the term “king’s,” or, as another blogger has pointed out, “royal,” would be more appropriate we get: “royal legal rights, interests and entitlements to property…”
It is far too common for laypersons to pass around fantastical stories of etymology that have no basis in actual scholarship. My experience tells me that if you have a “good story” about the origin of a word, it’s almost always too good to be true. It’s the boring scholarship that presents in dry word chains that’s more credible.
- Legal terms in common law are commonly based on English, French, and Latin. “Real” is not English, French, or Latin. It’s Spanish.
Now you’ve brought up a very interesting point about the Spanish origin of the word “real.” Spain was heavily influenced by the Catholic Church. As such, the church was a counter to the power of the king. Individual land ownership, that is, non-royal, land ownership was supported by the chuch, probably for the self-interest of the church. This tradition continues down to our present day, in that the individual home-ownership rate in Spain has historically been higher than that of ANY country, including the USA. So what about the Spanish word “real,” and how did this Spanish word creep into the American term “real estate.” It was through the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildalgo, wherein California, Arizona, and New Mexico were ceeded to the US. A famous clause in that treaty states “The rights of Mexican landowners shall be respected.” In other words, Spanish law, NOT American law would apply to landowners in these three states. As a result, in California, until 1906, a Married man could not sell his land unless his wife consented. The wife COULD actually sell the land they jointly owned WITHOUT the husband’s consent. Why, because this was Spanish law at the time the treaty was signed. Similarilly, in California until 1906, a woman could not be dis-inherited from her husband’s estate at his death, because that was Spanish law.
- Your understanding of mediaeval inheritance and ownership is garbled.
Could you explain it to me, or could you direct me to a source that would enlighten me? All I’m going with is what I learned from my UCLA Histroy major wife, and in my own education. If I’m going to challenge “The Boss,” I’ll be needing some very strong arguments.
- The idea that English etymology is not to be found in an English dictionary is, to put it mildly, odd. People who write dictionaries of English study the origins of English words, regardless of the origin. It’s not possible that English lexicographers haven’t considered such an obvious possibility as Spanish “real.”
I can’t seem to find a difinative etymology for the “real,” in “real estate.” Even Wikipedia is speculative. Can you direct me to another source?
Furthermore, we have yet current examples of “res” (Latin “thing”) being used in law to mean “property,” such as the term “in rem,” which describes a claim made against property rather than against a person (in personam). In an action in rem, the defendant is a piece of property, commonly land.
I am familiar with the term. When another attorney brought this up to me, I asked her, "Then why don’t we say “rem estate,” or “res estate?” This got her to thinking, and asking her fellow professors, who upon reflection, are now in a state of aporia regarding the issue.
“Res” shows up all the time in legal jargon. Res judicata – a thing (already) adjudicated.
Again, the meaning of the term “real estate,” following this line of reasoning, would be “thing estate.” “thing legal rights, interests and entitlements to property.” I’m not convinced. Can you convince me more?
Acsenray
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Acsenray
Send email to Acsenray
Find all posts by Acsenray
Add Acsenray to Your Contacts