Applicability: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
[[Nominalisation]] on steroids. A {{tag|noun}} that should have settled on being a {{tag|verb}} many years ago.
{{pe}}[[Nominalisation]] on steroids. A [[noun]] that should have settled on being a [[verb]] many years ago.


An old favourite, [[applicability]] started out life as a verb (“''[[apply]]''”), became a noun (“''[[application]]''”), became an adjective (“''[[applicable]]''”, shape-shifted then into a new {{tag|verb}} — albeit a {{tag|passive}} one — (“to be ''[[applicable]]''”), and eventually settled on a life of tiresome nounitude in its adult form as “''[[applicability]]''”.
An old favourite, [[applicability]] started out life as a verb (“''[[apply]]''”), became a noun (“''[[application]]''”), became an adjective (“''[[applicable]]''”, shape-shifted then into a new [[verb]] — albeit a [[passive]] one — (“to be ''[[applicable]]''”), and eventually settled on a life of tiresome nounitude in its adult form as “''[[applicability]]''”.


But at what cost to the reader? Without thinking on it, choose your favourite:
But at what cost to the reader? Without thinking on it, choose your favourite:
Line 13: Line 13:


Fun fact: “[[relevant]]” appears 272 times in the {{eqdefs}}, and “[[applicable]]” 124 times.
Fun fact: “[[relevant]]” appears 272 times in the {{eqdefs}}, and “[[applicable]]” 124 times.
{{Plainenglish}}

Latest revision as of 13:30, 14 August 2024

Towards more picturesque speech
SEC guidance on plain EnglishIndex: Click to expand:
Tell me more
Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.

Nominalisation on steroids. A noun that should have settled on being a verb many years ago.

An old favourite, applicability started out life as a verb (“apply”), became a noun (“application”), became an adjective (“applicable”, shape-shifted then into a new verb — albeit a passive one — (“to be applicable”), and eventually settled on a life of tiresome nounitude in its adult form as “applicability”.

But at what cost to the reader? Without thinking on it, choose your favourite:

This clause applies.
This clause is applicable.

Also a more pernickety but equally redundant way of saying “relevant”: “The users shall comply with all applicable contractual provisions” — seeming to suggest that users might be compelled otherwise to comply with provisions that didn’t apply.

That’s not how a contract works, peeps.

Fun fact: “relevant” appears 272 times in the 2002 ISDA Equity Derivatives Definitions, and “applicable” 124 times.