Relevant: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
Like the even ghastlier “[[applicable]]”, an adjective that carries precisely no semantic content. For, if a concept is ''not'' relevant, [[it goes without saying]] that it is not — well, ''relevant'' to the subject at hand. So one hardly needs to add a qualifier to distinguish the things you are not talking about from ones that you are.
Like the even ghastlier “[[applicable]]”, an adjective that carries precisely no semantic content. For, if a concept is ''not'' relevant, [[it goes without saying]] that it is not — well, ''relevant'' to the subject at hand. So one hardly needs to add a qualifier to distinguish the things you are not talking about from ones that you are.


To pull a random example, “{{Template:2002 ISDA Equity Derivatives Definitions 1.6}}”. Now this seems like a fine thing to say, until you put the contrary case: is can you imagine a court finding in favour of a counterparty claiming to labour under the misapprehension that he meant to talk about [[irrelevant]] {{eqderivprov|Shares}}?
To pull a random example:
:''{{Template:2002 ISDA Equity Derivatives Definitions 1.16}}''
 
Now this seems like a fine thing to say, until you put the contrary case: is can you imagine a court finding in favour of a counterparty claiming to labour under the misapprehension that he meant to talk about [[irrelevant]] {{eqderivprov|Shares}}?


This author says “no”.
This author says “no”.

Revision as of 09:01, 17 April 2018

Like the even ghastlier “applicable”, an adjective that carries precisely no semantic content. For, if a concept is not relevant, it goes without saying that it is not — well, relevant to the subject at hand. So one hardly needs to add a qualifier to distinguish the things you are not talking about from ones that you are.

To pull a random example:

Section 1.16. Issuer. “Issuer” means, in respect of Shares, the issuer of the relevant Shares.

Now this seems like a fine thing to say, until you put the contrary case: is can you imagine a court finding in favour of a counterparty claiming to labour under the misapprehension that he meant to talk about irrelevant Shares?

This author says “no”.

The stock Young Ones reference

Which inevitably calls to mind that wonderful scene from the young ones:

In The Young Ones,[1] just before The Damned kicked off a boisterous rendition of their punk classic Nasty, Mike and Vyvyan agonised over their failure to get their new video recorder working. It is a parable for today’s uncertain times.

Mike: Maybe you shouldn’t have poured all of that washing-up liquid into it.
Vyvyan: It says here, “ensure machine is clean and free from dust”.
Mike: Yeah, but it don’t say “ensure machine is full of washing-up liquid”.
Vyvyan: Well, it doesn’t say “ensure machine isn’t full of washing-up liquid”.
Mike: Well, it wouldn’t would it? I mean, it doesn’t say “ensure you don’t chop up your video machine with an axe, put all the bits in a plastic bag and bung them down the lavatory.”
Vyvyan: Doesn’t it? Well maybe that’s where we’re going wrong.

Plain English Anatomy™ Noun | Verb | Adjective | Adverb | Preposition | Conjunction | Latin | Germany | Flannel | Legal triplicate | Nominalisation | Murder your darlings

References

  1. The episode was Nasty, for details freaks.