Either: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Created page with "A subordinate clause starting with “either” is marginally more elegant than one introduced by “whether or not” — one word beats three — but is no more use..." |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Consider the following - a real life example, with nouns changed to protect identities: | Consider the following - a real life example, with nouns changed to protect identities: | ||
:'' | :''These general terms apply where you are making a payment ([[either]] [[directly or indirectly]] via a third party) to our investment bank entities, [[including]] in the [[EEA]] and the UK in connection with the receipt of Research Services (as such term is defined in our Electronic Access Terms (defined below) [[including]] material viewed as research a under EU Directive 2014/65/EU (“'''[[MiFID II]]'''”)) (“'''Research Services'''”).'' | ||
This contains some spectacular linguistic contortions. Padding (“[[including]] ...”) is embedded in padding. “Research Services” - defined in a document elsewhere, that document being defined here - is a component of “Research Services” defined here. | This contains some spectacular linguistic contortions. Padding (“[[including]] ...”) is embedded in padding. “Research Services” - defined in a document elsewhere, that document being defined here - is a component of “Research Services” defined here. | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
But what is most remarkable is how little this confection sets out to achieve in the first place. You could sum it all up with the following: | But what is most remarkable is how little this confection sets out to achieve in the first place. You could sum it all up with the following: | ||
:'' | :''These terms apply when you pay us for investment bank research in the [[EEA]].'' | ||
{{sa}} | |||
*[[profound ontological uncertainty]] | |||
{{draft}} | {{draft}} | ||
Latest revision as of 13:30, 14 August 2024
A subordinate clause starting with “either” is marginally more elegant than one introduced by “whether or not” — one word beats three — but is no more use to anyone who does not suffer from profound ontological uncertainty.
Consider the following - a real life example, with nouns changed to protect identities:
- These general terms apply where you are making a payment (either directly or indirectly via a third party) to our investment bank entities, including in the EEA and the UK in connection with the receipt of Research Services (as such term is defined in our Electronic Access Terms (defined below) including material viewed as research a under EU Directive 2014/65/EU (“MiFID II”)) (“Research Services”).
This contains some spectacular linguistic contortions. Padding (“including ...”) is embedded in padding. “Research Services” - defined in a document elsewhere, that document being defined here - is a component of “Research Services” defined here.
But what is most remarkable is how little this confection sets out to achieve in the first place. You could sum it all up with the following:
- These terms apply when you pay us for investment bank research in the EEA.