In this post from last November, I noted that the U.S. Solicitor General had cited A Manual of Style for Contract Drafting in their brief in a case before the U.S. Supreme Court involving a dispute over an and, Pulsifer v. U.S. Well, two days ago the other shoe dropped: in their opinion in that case (here), the U.S. Supreme Court cites MSCD. (The dissent cites it too.)
I enjoyed that the court’s opinion cites both The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language and MSCD. Both works bear the mark of Rodney Huddleston. He’s co-author of CGEL, but in addition it’s thanks to him that MSCD‘s analysis of what I call “ambiguity of the part versus the whole” makes sense. (See this 2020 blog post for more about that.)
I also enjoyed finding out for myself that the court had cited me. I had thought they might, so every few weeks I’d check to see whether they had issued the opinion. When I checked last Friday, I realized that the opinion had been issued three hours previously, so I quickly found it, searched for “Adams”, then double and triple checked. 🙂
Regarding the implications of this opinion, go here for an NBC News item. This dispute serves as a reminder that ands matter!
Congrats, Ken. I’m not sure how much this kind of thing means to you, but I hope you’re enjoying it.
Considered Century Schoolbook for the next edition of MSCD?
Hi Kyle. Thanks! Your comment prompted me to revise my post by adding a paragraph at the end. But honestly, I think what matters most is what other people think of this sort of thing.
Century Schoolbook? Nah, I’ll leave that to the real players!