|
time_is_now
|
 |
« Reply #60 on: 18:42:33, 07-08-2007 » |
|
It is exactly for that reason - so that nothing can be misconstrued. It is written in a certain way that is understandable without punctuation Exactly - that's what I was getting at. The successful court challenge mentioned by Baz relied on the stray comma to support its claim. I absolutely agree that the comma shouldn't have been there, but if it's a basic principle that legal documents do without punctuation, then it's beyond me how anyone was allowed to get away with claiming that the comma must have been intentional. Milly, I'm jealous. I'd love to do that type of work! (I love editing, proofreading, and anything like that.) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The city is a process which always veers away from the form envisaged and desired, ... whose revenge upon its architects and planners undoes every dream of mastery. It is [also] one of the sites where Dasein is assigned the impossible task of putting right what can never be put right. - Rob Lapsley
|
|
|
|
increpatio
|
|
« Reply #61 on: 18:52:00, 07-08-2007 » |
|
It is exactly for that reason - so that nothing can be misconstrued. It is written in a certain way that is understandable without punctuation Fascinating! I never noticed that before. I quite like first order languages (they are, for those not in the know, ones where, given a set, you can talk about all the elements of a set, but not about all subsets of that set). |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Kittybriton
|
|
« Reply #62 on: 19:28:09, 07-08-2007 » |
|
There is a God its official  unpunctuated, for Milly |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 19:31:34, 07-08-2007 by Kittybriton »
|
Logged
|
Click me -> About meor me -> my handmade storeNo, I'm not a complete idiot. I'm only a halfwit. In fact I'm actually a catfish. |
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #63 on: 08:23:02, 08-08-2007 » |
|
Which composer wrote the fattest comma of all time?
Best,
Alistair
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Baziron
Guest
|
|
« Reply #64 on: 08:41:04, 08-08-2007 » |
|
Which composer wrote the fattest comma of all time?
Best,
Alistair
Definitely Debussy! The comma he used in his scale was so great that it actually equated with the semitone (100 cents)! The result was that each semitone in the scale was actually doubled in size. He didn't seem to mind that much, even though it left him with an octave comprised only of 6 equal intervals! Baz  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
George Garnett
|
|
« Reply #65 on: 09:11:00, 08-08-2007 » |
|
Milly will put me right if I've got this wrong but I don't think legal documents insist on doing without commas altogether. It's more that they take their presence or absence very seriously. The rule in interpretation is that if a comma is there (or not there) it is there (or not there) for a reason and the document has to be interpreted literally. In the case quoted by Baz, for example, the comma that caused all the trouble doesn't make the sentence ambiguous. It alters the meaning. Similarly, you can have a case where omitting a needed comma does the same thing. The overall result tends to be that legal documents have fewer commas (and less punctuation generally) than ordinary prose but they do have 'em when needed. Important Disclaimer: This post is not a legal document so pointing out all the punctuation errors in it would be cruel and inappropriate  . [Oooh, here's an example from the very, very elegant Freedom of Information Act 2000, a thing of great beauty: S.54(3) Where a failure to comply is certified under subsection (1), the court may inquire into the matter and, after hearing any witness who may be produced against or on behalf of the public authority, and after hearing any statement that may be offered in defence, deal with the authority as if it had committed a contempt of court. (4) In this section "the court" means the High Court or, in Scotland, the Court of Session.] |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 09:36:22, 08-08-2007 by George Garnett »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Milly Jones
|
|
« Reply #66 on: 09:14:19, 08-08-2007 » |
|
Milly will put me right if I've got this wrong but I don't think legal documents insist on doing without commas altogether. It's more that they take their presence or absence very seriously. The rule in interpretation is that if a comma is there (or not there) it is there (or not there) for a reason and the document has to be interpreted literally. In the case quoted by Baz, for example, the comma that caused all the trouble doesn't make the sentence ambiguous. It alters the meaning. Similarly, you can have a case where omitting a needed comma does the same thing. The overall result tends to be that legal documents have fewer commas (and less punctuation generally) than ordinary prose but they do have 'em when needed. Important Disclaimer: This post is not a legal document so pointing out all the punctuation errors in it would be cruel and inappropriate . All I can say to this George is, that throughout my career and it may be ongoing now as we know, I have always been told never to put in punctuation. This has always been the case in any office I've worked in. I do not ever recollect putting a single comma in any document other than letters to clients - and they don't like them even then! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
We pass this way but once. This is not a rehearsal!
|
|
|
|
oliver sudden
|
|
« Reply #67 on: 09:39:16, 08-08-2007 » |
|
It will nobody surprise, that you in German no flexibility have, where you your commas put. By the way would Joseph Beuys count as a fat composer?  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Baziron
Guest
|
|
« Reply #68 on: 10:00:28, 08-08-2007 » |
|
It wasn't for nothing that Constant Lambert wrote his Rio Grande! Just look at him...........  Baz (nudge nudge, ) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #69 on: 10:05:16, 08-08-2007 » |
|
Milly will put me right if I've got this wrong but I don't think legal documents insist on doing without commas altogether. It's more that they take their presence or absence very seriously. The rule in interpretation is that if a comma is there (or not there) it is there (or not there) for a reason and the document has to be interpreted literally. In the case quoted by Baz, for example, the comma that caused all the trouble doesn't make the sentence ambiguous. It alters the meaning. Similarly, you can have a case where omitting a needed comma does the same thing. The overall result tends to be that legal documents have fewer commas (and less punctuation generally) than ordinary prose but they do have 'em when needed. Important Disclaimer: This post is not a legal document so pointing out all the punctuation errors in it would be cruel and inappropriate . All I can say to this George is, that throughout my career and it may be ongoing now as we know, I have always been told never to put in punctuation. This has always been the case in any office I've worked in. I do not ever recollect putting a single comma in any document other than letters to clients - and they don't like them even then! Though your knowledge of and experience in such matters must be far greater than mine, i had understood that the tradition of punctuationless presentation of deeds and other legal documents is not as strong as once it was - i.e. it is still perpetuated but no longer exclusively - so it would presumably depend on the current company policy of the firm of lawyers involved in any given example. I used to think that lawyers omitted punctuation from such documents in a bid to maintain a ceiling on costs, since every comma costs the client between £0.03 (at the average small-town family solicitors' practice) to around £0.20 (at Carter Ruck); I'm not sure if any lawyers recognise and implement any cost differentials according to girth of comma, however... Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Sydney Grew
Guest
|
|
« Reply #70 on: 10:06:12, 08-08-2007 » |
|
Here a mighty symphonist to omit whom it would not do: Now let's think this through... It is "it" about which we have least confidence; we feel that our "it" may be discretionary. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Milly Jones
|
|
« Reply #71 on: 10:15:21, 08-08-2007 » |
|
Milly will put me right if I've got this wrong but I don't think legal documents insist on doing without commas altogether. It's more that they take their presence or absence very seriously. The rule in interpretation is that if a comma is there (or not there) it is there (or not there) for a reason and the document has to be interpreted literally. In the case quoted by Baz, for example, the comma that caused all the trouble doesn't make the sentence ambiguous. It alters the meaning. Similarly, you can have a case where omitting a needed comma does the same thing. The overall result tends to be that legal documents have fewer commas (and less punctuation generally) than ordinary prose but they do have 'em when needed. Important Disclaimer: This post is not a legal document so pointing out all the punctuation errors in it would be cruel and inappropriate . All I can say to this George is, that throughout my career and it may be ongoing now as we know, I have always been told never to put in punctuation. This has always been the case in any office I've worked in. I do not ever recollect putting a single comma in any document other than letters to clients - and they don't like them even then! Though your knowledge of and experience in such matters must be far greater than mine, i had understood that the tradition of punctuationless presentation of deeds and other legal documents is not as strong as once it was - i.e. it is still perpetuated but no longer exclusively - so it would presumably depend on the current company policy of the firm of lawyers involved in any given example. I used to think that lawyers omitted punctuation from such documents in a bid to maintain a ceiling on costs, since every comma costs the client between £0.03 (at the average small-town family solicitors' practice) to around £0.20 (at Carter Ruck); I'm not sure if any lawyers recognise and implement any cost differentials according to girth of comma, however... Best, Alistair As I say, I can only speak from my own personal experience. The fact of the matter is that in these so-called "progressive modern times" the situation has become lax and it is possible I suppose that the rules may no longer apply. Foolish if that is the case because it gives rise to the sort of problem specified earlier. At any rate, the firms I work for still operate under the same policies as they always did. Perhaps we're behind the times now. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
We pass this way but once. This is not a rehearsal!
|
|
|
|
Baziron
Guest
|
|
« Reply #72 on: 10:23:00, 08-08-2007 » |
|
It is "it" about which we have least confidence; we feel that our "it" may be discretionary.
This sentence seems unduly over-punctuated Syd - that semicolon has the appearance of an endless staircase which to mount would be perilous, yet at whose summit resides the very meaning of the sentence itself (from whose sensory gratification we lesser mortals must remain aloof). "It" is such a complex word. When combined with the equally economic "we" (as well as with the slightly less economic "our") it might be more convenient to upgrade the system of transportation so as to include an escalator. Obedient your servant humble Baz |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 10:24:39, 08-08-2007 by Baziron »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
time_is_now
|
|
« Reply #73 on: 10:27:43, 08-08-2007 » |
|
Here a mighty symphonist to omit whom it would not do:
It is "it" about which we have least confidence; we feel that our "it" may be discretionary. We agree regarding its (or '"it's"'!) discretionary nature but it (or '"it"'!) is certainly no solecism. We wanted incidentally to say that we did admire the highly economical omission of the copula ('Here a mighty symphonist' rather than 'Here is a mighty ...'). A Russian convention, no?! But its effect in English is also most pleasing. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The city is a process which always veers away from the form envisaged and desired, ... whose revenge upon its architects and planners undoes every dream of mastery. It is [also] one of the sites where Dasein is assigned the impossible task of putting right what can never be put right. - Rob Lapsley
|
|
|
|
George Garnett
|
|
« Reply #74 on: 10:28:10, 08-08-2007 » |
|
It is "it" about which we have least confidence; we feel that our "it" may be discretionary.
This was our feeling too, Mr Grew, on the grounds that the 'whom' perhaps made it otiose. On the other hand it can be argued that the phrase "it would not do" is a linguistic unit in its own right and would lack completeness without the 'it', or would at least convey a slightly different flavour to the thought as a whole. We would be happy to concur with your judgement that the 'it' could be regarded as discretionary. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
