Why is the wording “cease and desist”? Aren’t those words pretty much synonyms?
I’d presume nowadays it’s for emphasis, but looking at the etymology it appears they originally were slightly different, specifically desist’s ancestor meaning to stop/stand and cease meaning to hold back or refrain. So it was essentially saying “Stop what you’re doing and try to keep yourself from doing it again.”
At least that’s what I gather, I may be off base.
I should have added in the OP: I’d heard some offhand explanation once that it was something in English common law (isn’t it always?) about how a given command from the constabulary (or whatever) had to be phrased at least two ways to be a binding order. Sounds made up to me, but sure, whatever.
Would that explain “null and void?” or “null and void and of no force or effect whatsoever?”
Many legal phrases have this sort of repetition. The theory I’ve heard is that it comes from the time when in the UK the legal system was changing over from Norman French to English, so lawyers tended to use words from both languages. I am not sure of the veracity of this.
Here’s what wiki says:
“Cease” is the Anglo-Saxon term and “desist” is the Norman (aka French) term.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_pair
In the early days of the English law, they used both the Anglo-Saxon and the Norman term in order to ensure that they covered all their basis. The practice persist, much to the annoyance of some.
Other examples are “null and void” and “will and testament.”
Sort of a side point, but there are times when you are drafting a legal document and you tend to err on the side of redundancy. “I hereby agree to indemnify you against any and all actions, claims, causes of action, lawsuits or proceedings before any court, tribunal, administrative agency or other body, in any jurisdiction, whether domestic or foreign, brought by any and all persons with claims arising out of or relating to this agreement.”
So, maybe it’s redundant for me to add “actions, claims, causes of action, lawsuits or proceedings” but so what? The downside of my being redundant is that somebody thinks I’m a less than elegant writer.
On the other hand, I am trying to guard against the possibility that, sometime down the line, somebody will try to squirm out of their obligations under this agreement. So if I just say “actions” and skip the rest, somebody will come along 10 years later and submit a 15 page brief arguing that, well, the lawsuit that just got brought in Zambia is not technically an “action” because it’s really more of a “proceeding.” And then a–possibly not very bright, certainly very busy, and possibly not well disposed to my client–judge may say, well, you know, I don’t think that Zambian proceeding is covered by the agreement. The downside of this is that the client is extremely pissed off, because he thought this agreement was airtight.
I always took it as “stop what you’re doing and don’t do it again”.
e.g. I’m told to cease playing loud music.
I turn my stereo off… I’ve fulfilled the requirements of the order.
I turn it back on and it’s a separate action which (I could argue) needs to be dealt with by an additional order.
But if I’m told to cease and]/i] desist I need to turn off the stereo and i]keep it switched off.
“To have and to hold” is the same thing… it implies an ongoing state of affairs, rather than being limited to a point in time.
“Breaking and entering” is surely not redundant?
If I break your window it’s criminal damage. But it’s treated differently if I break your window as a precursor to climbing through it and robbing your house.
As did I …
Like when the flight attendant makes the speech about federal law forbids “disabling, destroying or tampering with the lavatory smoke detector.” Aren’t all of those covered by the single word tampering?
To follow up on constantine’s point, I guess this is to prevent someone who smashes the device to pieces claiming “I didn’t tamper with it, I destroyed it, tampering implies some adjustment where the device is still functional…” or some such ridiculous, but potentially court-time-wasting argument, which can be easily avoided by the insertion of a couple of technically redundant words.
I’m sure you’re right. Like the announcement in the airports that “smoking or the carrying of lit smoking materials is prohibited.” You just know that some jerk was ticketed and claimed that he wasn’t smoking in a no smoking zone, he was merely carrying the lit cigar from one smoking area to another, so they had to add the carrying provision.
Princhester and constantine more or less got it. Cease and desist is one of many doublets left over in law and language from the time of the Norman conquest when it was common in law to combine a French or Latinate term with its Anglo-Saxon synonym: cease and desist, aid and abet, each and every, part and parcel, null and void, peace and quiet, etc.
“Breaking and entering” is a bit different; they’re two of the elements of common law burglary, not really a French/Anglo Saxon doublet even though the words come from those languages. Each word has a differnet meaning in the law. “Breaking” is the nonconsentual opening or widening of an opening into the dwelling of another (not necessarily breaking anything in the normal sense, just making or widening an opening), and “entry” is crossing the physical plane into the dwelling with one’s body or an instrument. If done at night with the intent to commit a felony therein, it’s burglary.
“Last and Final” boarding call?
It just occurred to me that “hue and cry” is another phrase that might look like a redundant pair, but is not.
Hue and cry meaning “a horn and shouting” is
“a process by which bystanders were summoned to assist in the apprehension of a criminal who had been witnessed in the act of committing a crime.”
See wikipedia hue and cry for more fascinating details.
All of which is true enough. However, many more-or-less synonymous words from different root languages have, over the centuries, acquired connotations and shadings which can yield slightly different modern meanings. Wallenstein provides a couple of nice examples.
Just one of those things that makes the history of the English language so interesting.
“English doesn’t just borrow words from other languages; English follows other languages down dark alleys, thumps them over the head, and riffles though their pockets for new words.” I forget who said that.
Some of the doublets also formerly had specific meanings, owing to the distinction between law (i.e., common law) and equity, or that between real property, chattels, and personal property. An example of the latter is the phrase, formerly and in some places still, common in wills, “give, devise, and bequeath.” To us today this sounds like three words used synonymously – but at one time there was a clear distinction between types of property that could be given by will, devised by a testator, or bequeathed to an heir – and using the wrong form of transference for a given item of property was grounds to challenge a will.
I have a feeling that’s more of “we’re telling you this twice in case you aren’t paying attention; don’t say we didn’t warn you!”
According to Wikiquote, James Nicoll. Not the artist, just a Usenet poster. The full quote is:
“The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don’t just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.”
Thanks! His version has much more flavr.