Template:Amend and supplement: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
 
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
===“[[Amend]]” versus “[[supplement]]” versus “[[modify]]”===
===“[[Amend]]” versus “[[supplement]]” versus “[[modify]]”===
Is something missing from the notion “[[amend]]” that means it must be, well [[supplement]]ed or even [[modified]], to capture all lexical contortions to which a negotiating party might subject it [[from time to time]]? For example, you will often see, “this agreement, as [[amended]], [[supplement|supplemented]] or [[modified]] ([[as the case may be]]) [[from time to time]]...”.
Is something missing from the notion “[[amend]]” that means it must, well, be ''[[supplement]]ed'' or even ''[[modified]]'', to capture all lexical contortions to which a negotiating party might subject it [[from time to time]]? For example, you will often see, “this agreement, as [[amended]], [[supplement|supplemented]] or [[modified]] ([[as the case may be]]) [[from time to time]]...”.


Is something lost if we just say “as amended”?
Is this really necessary? So we lose something if we just say “as amended”?


In this old fool’s opinion, ''no''. To “[[amend]]” is to “[[change]]”. So is to “[[modify]]”. These words are exact synonyms.  A language lover might argue that, of those three synonyms, “change” is the simplest and, therefore, best.  
In this old fool’s opinion, ''no''.


To “[[supplement]]” is not, ''quite'' a synonym: one might append something to the foot of an agreement that has absolutely no effect on its internal workings, the same way one might “[[supplement]]” a Morris Minor with a caravan and head off to Wales. (So loaded, your Morris Minor might struggle up the Chilterns, but it is still the same vehicle). But an agreement so “supplemented” isn’t ''changed'', so there is no harm in neglecting to mention that kind of supplement. If your supplement ''does'' change the terms of the existing [[agreement]] then — well, it is an [[amendment]], isn’t it? In ''that'' sense “[[supplement]]” ''is'' a synonym for “[[amend]]”.  
====Amendment====
To “[[amend]]” is to “[[change]]”. So is to “[[modify]]”. These words are exact synonyms.  A language lover might argue that, of those three synonyms, “change” is the simplest and, therefore, best.
====[[Supplement]]====
To “[[supplement]]” is not, ''quite'', a synonym, but nearly: one might append something to the foot of an agreement — that is to say, ''supplement'' it — in a way that has no effect on the agreement itself, the same way one might “[[supplement]]” a Morris Minor with a caravan and head off to Wales. So loaded, your Morris might struggle over the Chilterns, but it is still the same, ''un[[amended]]'' vehicle. But an agreement so “supplemented” isn’t ''changed'', so there is no harm in neglecting that kind of supplement from your catalogue of legal contingencies. If your supplement ''does'' change the terms of the existing [[agreement]], as a physical conversion of a Morris Minor into a campervan might, then — well, it ''is'' an [[amendment]], isn’t it? In ''that'' sense “[[supplement]]” ''is'' an exact, and redundant, synonym for “[[amend]]”.


====What definitely ''won’t'' change====
Will this irrefutable logic now end the [[legal eagle]]’s fetish for adumbrating the different ways by which one might “alter, amend, truncate, supplement, modify, augment, diminish, expand, contract, extend, retract, deprecate, elaborate, embellish, distill or otherwise change” a legal compact?
Will this irrefutable logic now end the [[legal eagle]]’s fetish for adumbrating the different ways by which one might “alter, amend, truncate, supplement, modify, augment, diminish, expand, contract, extend, retract, deprecate, elaborate, embellish, distill or otherwise change” a legal compact?


Will it ''hell''.<br>
Will it ''hell''.<br>

Latest revision as of 11:56, 17 July 2020

Amend” versus “supplement” versus “modify

Is something missing from the notion “amend” that means it must, well, be supplemented or even modified, to capture all lexical contortions to which a negotiating party might subject it from time to time? For example, you will often see, “this agreement, as amended, supplemented or modified (as the case may be) from time to time...”.

Is this really necessary? So we lose something if we just say “as amended”?

In this old fool’s opinion, no.

Amendment

To “amend” is to “change”. So is to “modify”. These words are exact synonyms. A language lover might argue that, of those three synonyms, “change” is the simplest and, therefore, best.

Supplement

To “supplement” is not, quite, a synonym, but nearly: one might append something to the foot of an agreement — that is to say, supplement it — in a way that has no effect on the agreement itself, the same way one might “supplement” a Morris Minor with a caravan and head off to Wales. So loaded, your Morris might struggle over the Chilterns, but it is still the same, unamended vehicle. But an agreement so “supplemented” isn’t changed, so there is no harm in neglecting that kind of supplement from your catalogue of legal contingencies. If your supplement does change the terms of the existing agreement, as a physical conversion of a Morris Minor into a campervan might, then — well, it is an amendment, isn’t it? In that sense “supplementis an exact, and redundant, synonym for “amend”.

What definitely won’t change

Will this irrefutable logic now end the legal eagle’s fetish for adumbrating the different ways by which one might “alter, amend, truncate, supplement, modify, augment, diminish, expand, contract, extend, retract, deprecate, elaborate, embellish, distill or otherwise change” a legal compact?

Will it hell.