Modi-fake-ation

The old Jesuits often took pains to impress upon their students Cicero’s exhortation, Sapientia et Eloquentia —that is, wisdom and eloquence. One without the other tends to diminish, if not damage and detract from, the message. And so, the other important piece of advice on oration: say what you mean, and mean what you say. It is never a simple matter of just saying something with conviction, because if the words do not give voice to the truth, then one merely makes for a convincing liar. This skill is, perhaps, one of the reasons why people often view lawyers interchangeably and synonymously with liars. In truth, the lawyers’ knack for splitting hairs can be a helpful discipline to get to the truth — sometimes.

This past week, the bone of contention in the ongoing impeachment saga was PSBank’s alleged record of deposits of the Chief Justice that was supposedly supplied by the “small lady” and/or the “tall Congressman”. Both the Bank President and the branch manager took turns in testifying that the alleged record was “fake, spurious and/or a forgery.” Their lawyer even added the word “bogus” to the litany. This led me to reflect on whether the choice of words was appropriate, accurate and precise. 

*      *      *      *

It is important to spot the difference, especially when doing so makes a difference. Taken all together, “fake, forgery, and spurious” are perfect if one wishes to completely obliterate any trust or confidence that can be reposed in an object. However, taken singly, as separate descriptive words, to describe something would require that the word chosen is truly the appropriate choice.

After all, while synonyms might mean (nearly) the same thing, some are simply more appropriate than others — just as, while plump and stout might both connote being fat, the former can be pleasant, while the other can be squat.

The absence of that same level of care, on any other day and in any other occasion, would be perfectly all right. However, when the words that need be uttered have gained a particular signification and have grave consequences and implications, greater precision is not a tall order, but simply a must.

*      *      *      *

In their loose sense, the words, “fake,” “forgery,” and “spurious” mean that they are false or not real. Upon closer scrutiny, however, the distinctions lie in the subtle differences in their intended claim, i.e. what they purport to be. On this scale, a “fake” seeks to pass something off as true, with little regard for how closely it might resemble the truth. A “forgery,” on the other hand, premises its ability to pass off the falsehood based on how closely it resembles the real thing. Finally, something that is “spurious” tries to pass off as the real thing, based on a larger or deeper context that lends credence to the claim.

A few examples might help make the distinctions more discernible. For instance, you bought an original Lacoste shirt but decided to cut off the crocodile mascot. Does the removal of the brand symbol make that shirt a “fake”? Or is being “real” dependent on whose perspective (i.e, the wearer or the viewer) one adopts? Similarly, will a “slightly damaged” shirt purchased on sale from an outlet store be characterized as genuine?

Or what if someone figured into a bad accident and had to undergo total reconstructive surgery. Despite an outward appearance diametrically opposed to the original appearance, can anyone argue that such person is not the same anymore? Pushing this reasoning to a more plausible and less grave scenario, what if a person undergoes a surgical enhancement? Does this alteration or modification change them so much so that they should no longer be considered authentic?

Finally, and more on point, suppose you have an original document which is photocopied, subjected to highlighting, underlining and maybe marking, then photocopied again. Should the third copy be labeled a “fake” as against the original?

My four centavos is that one cannot label something as “fake, spurious, or a forgery” simply because it has been modified in some way. One needs to examine the quality of the alteration and determine if it has materially impacted the essence of the original. For, notwithstanding modifications, there may still be unaltered portions in the original which may still be of use. No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak.

To further distinguish the three concepts, a “forgery,” as it is often used, requires some skill (and art) to make the resemblance so striking as to leave the “in-authenticity” unnoticed. And so, we speak of forged signatures or works of art that, often, require the skill of a trained eye or expert to be able to detect. Finally, something that is “spurious” is so, because, its pretense is founded on a claim of being legitimate — that is, having been engendered through a legitimate process. For this reason, we often use the words “spurious” in regard to matters where “legitimacy” is in question, e.g. real estate transactions and filiation of children.

*      *      *      *

Because we don’t expect lay persons to know these differences when they give their answers, the obligation falls squarely on the shoulders of lawyers to ask the right questions. Just as it is difficult to give an intelligent answer to a stupid question, the right question has been known to elicit the right answers.

This attempt to achieve greater precision has, however, had its pitfalls. In trying to be accurate, lawyers oftentimes describe simple concepts with redundancies and surplusage. Unfortunately, this practice (commonly termed as legalese) tends to further obscure rather than clarify.

Simply put, overuse may lead to misuse and the result can eventually be disuse. Enough said.

*      *      *      *

Greetings: Birth anniversary best wishes to “French bred” food critic Ann Marie Mabilangan-Ozaeta.

*      *      *      *

“The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug.” — Mark Twain

*      *      *      *

E-mail: [email protected]