I think you are protesting too much. If this is “not a theory,” how come there is so much confusion and so many other theories? Their statement that it means “affidavit” does not make it that way. I agree with MM (which doesn`t sound at all condescending to me) that this sounds convincing, but it`s not as obviously true as you suggest. @David (L). I don`t do it myself, but it`s easier than explaining the deliberate redundancy, given the ease of transposing numbers when writing elongated numbers in this way (i.e. if the two versions don`t match, you know there`s a problem and can ask for clarification). And you can`t say when proofreading that 1,372 is a typo for 1,327 unless you know the context so well that you can see that 1,372 doesn`t make sense. This is probably not justified by costs in most contexts (with the exception of those that are extremely risk-averse, which many authors of such documents are), but it is not as if there is no opaque functional explanation. Note that for court records that have certain page or word count restrictions (which is largely what I do), there is more pressure to eliminate redundancy and thus abandon mysterious legacy phrases aimed at appeasing obscure cosmic forces, but in many other types of legal documents, there is no such incentive for brevity. Many documents, especially those generated by banks and similar institutions, display the “SS” symbol next to the spaces for location information (state __, county ___). An astonishing number of notaries do not know the meaning of the “SS” symbol or mistakenly believe that it is an application for a Social Security number! Many possible etymologies have been suggested for this mysterious abbreviation.
The first is that it means scillicet (= i.e. to wit), which is usually abbreviated sc. or scil. Another is the ss. represents “the two gold letters at the ends of the office chain or `necklace` worn by the Lord Chief Justice of the King`s Bench. Max Radin, Dictionnaire du droit 327 (1955). Melinkoff suggests that the exact etymology is unknown: “Avocados have been using ss for nine hundred years and are still unsure of what it means.” David Melinkoff, The Language of Law 296 (1963). In fact, however, it is a flourish derived from directories – an equivalent of the sales mark: “¶”.
Hence Lord Hardwicke`s statement that ss. is nothing more than a sign of division. See Jodderrell v. Cowell, 95 eng. 222 222 (K.B. 1737). . . . .
. One of the first authors of collections of forms incorporated it into its forms, and since then it has been thoughtlessly immortalized by one generation after another. Bryan A. Garner, Garner`s Dictionary of Legal Usage 839 (3rd ed. 2011). No, you have to read a little more David. Read the article. (These are U.S. legal documents that contain a meaningless ss.
in the title.) I obviously look very snotty here! But I have to protest against being called Sir. @Shelley: I did not claim to be a linguist. I never studied linguistics, much to my regret. I linked to this thread and read it before posting it because in fact, someone else on a mailing list had mentioned it. However, it doesn`t matter, I`m sure the link was easy to miss and the way I jumped on you was of no use to anyone. @Mark: I don`t think I used the term “theory,” but I`m not 100% convinced. It may be impossible to say this without being condescending. @hat: Thank you very much for the explanation. I had forgotten that this discussion could continue because nothing developed on my side. I know L.S.
as locus sigilli. The problem with the joint/sigillum is the position of the ss. in this header. If you ss. search for it in Google, you can see many documents that are not sworn in, but ss. on them. Take my first shot: www.in.gov/idoi/pdf/MaxicareLiq.pdf It`s a liquidation order, and no one has sworn anything. This is only part of the title of the court. That`s why I like Garner`s explanation that it makes no sense and was accidentally copied.
Mark, how does your father explain when there is no swearing and no affidavit? Sorry what I was looking for was not ss… .