Assume v. Presume

Black Hole said:
I have seen it used in a situation where it was difficult to decide whether the missing word was "and" or "or". Without my pedantic hat on, I don't care how people express themselves so long as the meaning is clear - and since the primary objective of all communication is to convey meaning, I regard ambiguity as the ultimate sin (unless ambiguity is the intention).
Click to expand...
In the example you give (gave? given? gaven?) there is no ambiguity. I understand that in legal language a comma always means "and".
 
gomezz said:
I understand that in legal language a comma always means "and".
Click to expand...
Some legal documents are written without punctuation (commas, specifically wills), I presume because somehow they think commas result in ambiguity. 'Tis weird.
 
Black Hole said:
I presume because somehow they think commas result in ambiguity.
Click to expand...
I am sure there have been legal cases around the interpretation of such things and I completely understand them not being allowed.
Not having recourse to anything other than a full stop will make you focus on writing very clearly - which is what you want in a legal document. 'Interpreting the law' is a popular hobby/profession in the legal industry.
 
Black Hole said:
Some legal documents are written without punctuation (commas, specifically wills), I presume because somehow they think commas result in ambiguity. 'Tis weird.
Click to expand...
Some lawyers are just weird, domestic law to do with property and wills is a joke, totally illogical and antiquated.

One Scratlet is in regulational law (professional standards) and that is much more sensible, as was her previous job in prison law and criminal law.
 
One of my life's ambition is to be asked a compound question in the witness box so I can give a simple answer which apparently contradicts the self-evident truth.

Yes and No means No! :D
 
MikeSh said:
Not having recourse to anything other than a full stop will make you focus on writing very clearly - which is what you want in a legal document.
Click to expand...
That is presumably a lawyer's definition of "clearly" - when I've read lawyer-drafted wills I have found the application of commas would aid readability and therefore clarity. Without something to delimit clauses, it is difficult to know which bits "and" and "or" applies to - like mathematics without brackets. Personally, I think it is just a legal in-joke to keep outsiders outside.
 
Black Hole said:
the application of commas would aid readability
Click to expand...
It's one case where readability is very much secondary to being unambiguous.

The other problem is that a comma could just be a mark that's got in there, like dirt in the photocopier, and could change the meaning unintentionally. If there are no commas allowed you won't be misled by something that looks like one, or any other marks. (Stops are less difficult as the next sentence will have a capital letter at the start, so a spurious stop will usually be obvious.)
 
This also counts for the "Interesting" thread:

I was having a debate with a sparring partner about bird identification, and he insisted on capitalising the bird names. For example, I might write "robin" (because I'm referring to robins in general and not a specific individual named Robin), whereas he would write "Robin". I asked why and he referred me to this website:

https://www.worldbirdnames.org/new/english-names/spelling-rules/capitalization/

...from which I quote (my emphasis):
While this is contrary to the general rules of spelling for mammals, birds, insects, fish, and other life forms (i.e., use lowercase letters), the committee believed the initial capital to be preferable for the name of a bird species in an ornithological context
Click to expand...

What? That's like the Met Office trying to persuade everybody the season of Winter starts on 1st December.

Also, what's this "capitalization" anyway? That's either American or severely out-of-date English.
 
I could be guilty of capitalising* words. I never know whether to use Monday or monday, Winter or winter, and various others which I can't recall at present. If pressed, my excuse would be I'm sure that's the way I was taught.

(* for some reason -ize grates with me)
 
EEPhil said:
I could be guilty of capitalising* words. I never know whether to use Monday or monday, Winter or winter, and various others which I can't recall at present. If pressed, my excuse would be I'm sure that's the way I was taught.

(* for some reason -ize grates with me)
Click to expand...
Months? Compass points? Feasts? Languages?

I was taughr to use Latin binomials when referring to species.

"The European robin (Erithacus rubecula), known simply as the robin or robin redbreast in the British Isles," (From WP)

So is it Robin, European Robin, Robin Redbreast or what? The italicised binomial uniquely identifies the species. The generic half is always capitalised. Italicise it, so that the specific half does not disappear into the rest of the text, as sometimes the specific half is not just one word.
 
EEPhil said:
I never know whether to use Monday or monday, Winter or winter
Click to expand...
You have to decide whether you are using the word (in context) as a proper noun, collective noun, or an adjective. There must be very few situations where the name of a day can be an adjective, but I suppose one might say "never in a month of sundays"... however I would expect "never in a month of Sundays".

"Winter" is clear enough: winter vegetables, winter weather, the name of the season is Winter.

EEPhil said:
for some reason -ize grates with me
Click to expand...
No reason it shouldn't, -ise has been standard in English for some time.
 
Winter is a general block (bloc?) of time. Monday (et al) are specific names and are derived from the proper names of gods. So I tend to capitalise them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top