October 20, 2006
Okay, enough with the serious stuff. Let's play a game, like Miriam Cherry's version of Sniglets over on PrawfsBlawg last month. This is a word game, and we are lawyers or law professors or law students (or in the case of my two readers, children of law professors) who rely on language to keep the dogs in Alpo, so it has something to do with the profession. (I assume everyone who reads this blog is so literate they do the Saturday New York Times crossword puzzle in ink without mistake inside of fifteen minutes.)
The game is called Pro-posites. In the last post I used the word disgruntled, which sounds like it ought to have an opposite: gruntled. Is anyone ever gruntled? This is the missing pro-posite.
Here's another: inept. I have broad experience in being inept. If I practice more, will I become ept?
The format of Legal Profession Blog, being a part of the Law Professor Blogs Network ("our editors focus their efforts, in both the permanent resources & links and daily news & information, on the scholarly and teaching needs of law professors"), requires one of us to approve your comment before it's posted. Any good faith attempt to supply missing pro-posites will be published. (Sorry there are no other prizes. All I could think of was the unused tube of Boudreaux's Butt Paste I used in Secured Transactions as an example of trademarks and copyrights.)
*I'm sorry, Paul. I know this is outside the scope of the blog, but I couldn't help it. Don't fire me!
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Missing Pro-posites*:
I don't have any for you yet, Jeff, but I think you should know the slogan for Boudreaux's often used before you got to N'awlins: "If it doesn't say Boudreaux's, it's not really buttpaste." Truer words were never spoke, though I don't mean not to be solent.
Posted by: Alan Childress | Oct 20, 2006 10:07:33 AM
I guess I should be dismayed at your shameless plug of the fine Boudreaux's product in your class, likely in an effort for free preview copies of the product a la casebooks and aids (does anyone actually assign Gilbert's?), but I actually find myself to be mayed.
Posted by: Alan Childress | Oct 20, 2006 10:19:27 AM
I wish somebody besides us read this blog.
Posted by: Jeff Lipshaw | Oct 20, 2006 11:00:02 AM
Maybe it's too ane.
Posted by: Jeff Lipshaw | Oct 20, 2006 11:02:43 AM
How about "dissheveled"?
And what's with "ingenious"?
Posted by: tim zinnecker | Oct 21, 2006 9:49:12 AM
An article entry for the Pro-posites game, entitled Tips on Being Couth. Available at
Posted by: Nancy Levit | Oct 21, 2006 10:57:58 AM
Wow. There is nothing new under the sun.
Nancy, my hat is off to you.
Posted by: Jeff Lipshaw | Oct 21, 2006 12:39:02 PM
What exactly am I currently barred from that's going to open up when my clients and the disciplinary commission catch up with me?
Posted by: Jane Hicks | Oct 21, 2006 8:50:26 PM
Good one, Jane, and more on topic with the blog than we were. I guess our writing could be better if it were more jointed.
Posted by: Alan Childress | Oct 23, 2006 12:39:25 PM
Slightly off topic but also on topic, I hope...
New reader (and attorney); just wanted to share that I and my boyfriend did something like this awhile ago, only we were going off of the fact that Star Wars Sith (yes, we're nerds) were generally either named after something violent (Darth Maul) or an evil-type word minus the "in" (see, Darth Sidious, Darth Vader, etc.) So for fun, we did an entire meme-generator which incorporated a number of "in" words minus the "in" as the name of the supposed Sith Lord. (for example, Darth Bred).
Possibly that explanation isn't clear, but follow the link below to see what I mean (enter any letter or combination of letters to get different Darth names). Wish I still had the original list somewhere, but I think I deleted it.
Posted by: Emily | Oct 24, 2006 9:57:39 AM
Hmmm. I wonder how Darth Motherlaw would classify on that method.
Posted by: Jeff Lipshaw | Oct 24, 2006 10:17:37 AM