The words effect the transfer, and it is good against the world when recorded. At one time “sealing” and “delivery” of the deed were also required–as in “signed, sealed and delivered”–but not any more. Even “fee simple” could be left out since an intention to grant property absolutely is presumed. It takes the average lawyer more than one lifetime to realize that the law has changed, though, which is why you still see often see the words “under seal,” although there is no seal, and you don’t need any damn seal. And they’re always afraid that a legal action will be ineffective in the absence of five synonyms, so you still see stuff like “grant, demise, transfer, release and forever quitclaim,” which means absolutely nothing, but has a fine ring to it, and makes the clients feel they’re getting value for money.

The “delivery” of the deed formerly required was a substitute for the old ceremony of “livery of seisin”–handing over possession in the form of a clod of earth, before witnesses. But that’s been gone for centuries.

And “bequeath” refers to a transfer of personal (not real) property effected by will. It’s the opposite of a gift, which occurs only between the living.

So your several examples are not equally right, but equally wrong, or at least equally irritating. I’m not asking lay people to use legal technicalities correctly–good writers don’t use them at all unless they’re reasonably sure what they’re saying, because they are unnecessary. If you want to say Joe gave the painting to the University, say “Joe gave the painting to the University.” If Joe’s dead, say he “willed” the property to the University. Leave the deeds, and donates, and bequeaths out of it.

Cranky Man

As for people who correct grammar? It depends who is talking. For example, if your child said something like; ‘I ain’t never doing that’ or ‘I don’t want nothing’ then I guess you would correct it… but then only if you knew it was incorrect.