海角大神

Public discourse seems to be going through a phase (let鈥檚 hope it鈥檚 just a phase) of general coarsening right now.

This unoriginal observation may explain why my attention was caught the other day by a usage that was almost endearing in its quaintness: 鈥渂ehalves.鈥�

It appeared in a news report of a lawyer who seemed 鈥済iddy at the prospect鈥� of using the tweets of the man he was suing against him 鈥渙n his clients鈥� behalves.鈥�

The man being sued is a prolific tweeter, and his tweets may work against him. His aides, asked by journalists about how well they鈥檙e doing in getting him to restrain himself, responded, in at least one case, with a vulgar, R-rated initialism that made it into the article鈥檚 headline. To translate into language I can use here: The aides say they鈥檙e 鈥渓aughing very hard鈥� at the thought of their boss being restrainable.聽

So what鈥檚 with 鈥渂ehalves鈥�? The usual word is behalf. It means 鈥渋nterest, support, or benefit,鈥� but lives on in just two idioms, which seem to be merging: on behalf of and in behalf of.

The former means, according to the American Heritage Dictionary (AHD), 鈥淎s the agent of; on the part of.鈥� A lawyer鈥檚 letter 鈥渙n behalf of鈥� his client is a classic example.

The latter means 鈥渇or the benefit of鈥� or 鈥渋n the interest of,鈥� as in 鈥渞aising money in behalf of disaster victims.鈥� (People who can afford lawyers seem very different from disaster victims, and this thought helps me with the on/in distinction.)

But that distinction is clearly under stress.聽

鈥淸A]s the two meanings are quite close, the phrases are often used interchangeably, even by reputable writers,鈥� says the AHD.

In the same vein, Merriam-Webster says the on/in distinction 鈥渋s frequently not observed.鈥澛�

And so what about 鈥渂ehalves鈥�? (Google thinks I must mean 鈥渂ivalves.鈥�)

The Grammarphobia blog took this one on a while back: 鈥淚n modern usage, 鈥榖ehalf鈥� is an invariable noun and has no plural form. The old plural 鈥榖ehalves鈥� is considered obsolete and has been for some time.鈥�

The authors add, though, 鈥淩ight or wrong, the obsolete plural is still alive and kicking in legal terminology,鈥� where 鈥渋t might be necessary to make clear that the petitioners have separate interests (or 鈥榖ehalves鈥�).鈥�

Indeed, a Google News search for 鈥渂ehalves鈥� shows quite a number to be from a quote from a lawyer, or an article based on interviews with lawyers, like the aforementioned 鈥済iddy鈥� one.

But Grammarphobia gives clear guidance: 鈥淚t ill behooves us non-lawyers to use 鈥榖ehalves.鈥� 鈥�

I concur. Separate 鈥減etitioners鈥� may well have 鈥渟eparate interests鈥� sometimes. But these times cry out for a stronger, fuller sense of the common interest. Something about 鈥渂ehalves鈥� bespeaks a certain 鈥淚 want mine鈥� attitude 鈥� not unrelated to the coarsening of public discourse mentioned earlier.

It takes a lot of 鈥渂ehalves鈥� to make a whole, and right now we really need that whole.