We know some folks would quibble, but in our view, the legal plea nolo contendere comes a little too close to straddling the line that separates truth from falsehood. In the court system, nolo contendere—"I do not wish to contend" in Latin—names the plea in a criminal prosecution whereby a defendant is subjected to conviction without admitting guilt, while still retaining the ability to deny the truth of the charges in a collateral proceeding.

While lawyers may appreciate the tactical advantages of such a plea, legal scholars who also appreciate words may be reminded of the term prevarication. Although we wouldn't dream of contending that folks pleading no contest are prevaricating (that is, "equivocating or confusing the issue"), we will note that prevaricate has long enjoyed a home in the legal world. In the courts, to prevaricate is "to deviate from duty and probity"; in Old English law, a prevaricating informer or defendant was guilty of colluding in order to conduct a sham prosecution, while a prevaricating lawyer betrayed a client's cause by colluding with an opponent.

So where does prevaricate come from? According to Pliny the Elder, prevaricate—from the Latin verb meaning "to walk crookedly"—was originally applied to men who plowed crooked ridges; only later did it come to describe the act of giving crooked answers in courtrooms or of deviating from the truth.