(Untitled)

[mvak]

Opinions needed: is italicizing non-english words necessary?  I kinda feel like it just highlights the fact that I'm going to use something pretentious, but it looks weird to write

There is no reason a priori for the state to....

compared to

These is no reason a priori for the state to....

Comments

[gaius_marius]

I vote for italicization. It looks too weird not to. However, in addition to personal preference I can at least tell you what the lawyers' style guide, The Blue Book, says on the issue:

"Italicize non-English words and phrases unless they have been incorporated into common English usage. Latin words and phrases that are often used in legal writing are considered to be in common English usage and should not be italicized. However, very long Latin phrases and obsolete or uncommon Latin words and phrases should remain italicized."

It goes on to say as examples that you would italicize

expression unius est exclusio alterius (a pretty common legal phrase)
ignorantia legis neminem excusat (which I'm surprised you'd ever say in Latin since it's common in English)
sero sed serio

It also cites as examples that would NOT be italicized
e.g.
i.e.
quid pro quo
res judicata
amicus curiae
corpus juris
obiter dictum
modus operandi
non obstante verdicto
mens rea
certiorari
ab initio
de jure
habeas corpus
prima facie
en banc

a priori isn't there, but I would say it's close enough in commonality to habeas corpus, ab initio, and modus operandi. I'd still personally like to see it italicized, but if you don't want to there's some license not to. There's probably also some math person style guide somewhere for stuff you would be writing.

[gaius_marius]

Westlaw seems to believe this has never happened but I didn't care enough to search thoroughly.