Definisn’t: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|plainenglish|}}{{d|Definisn’t|/ˌdɛfɪˈnɪznt/|n|}} | {{a|plainenglish|}}{{d|Definisn’t|/ˌdɛfɪˈnɪznt/|n|}} | ||
The ''opposite'' of a [[definition]]. A lexical means to establishing, for all times and all | The ''opposite'' of a [[definition]]. A lexical means to establishing, for all times and all avoidances, what something is ''not''. | ||
The most famous example is the | The most famous example is the definisn’t of “[[security-based swap]]” from the Rules and Regulations of the [[Securities Exchange Act of 1934]]. | ||
{{quote| | {{quote|“'The term ''[[security-based swap]]'' ... does not include an [[agreement]], [[contract]], or [[transaction]] that is based on or references a qualifying foreign futures contract ... on the [[debt securities]] of any one or more of the foreign governments ... provided that such agreement, contract, or transaction satisfies the following conditions: [''there follows an interminable list of conditions'']”<ref>Marvel at the original — which appears to my dim old eyes to be missing a closing bracket, by the way — [https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/17/240.3a68-5 here].</ref>}} | ||
We are left with the rather unsettling conclusion that anything else in the universe is, or could be, or it is not beyond that question that it could in suitable circumstances be considered as, or [[deemed]] to be, a [[security-based swap]]. A Cornish pasty; an echidna; a map of Tasmania; a motorised rick-shaw: all are, or at any rate could be, “security-based swaps” for whatever purposes might hove into view should you be a regulator empowered by the [[Securities Exchange Act]]. | We are left with the rather unsettling conclusion that anything else in the universe is, or could be, or it is not beyond that question that it could in suitable circumstances be considered as, or [[deemed]] to be, a [[security-based swap]]. A Cornish pasty; an echidna; a map of Tasmania; a motorised rick-shaw: all are, or at any rate could be, “security-based swaps” for whatever purposes might hove into view should you be a regulator empowered by the [[Securities Exchange Act]]. | ||
Revision as of 13:32, 21 March 2022
|
Towards more picturesque speech™
|
Definisn’t
/ˌdɛfɪˈnɪznt/ (n.)
The opposite of a definition. A lexical means to establishing, for all times and all avoidances, what something is not.
The most famous example is the definisn’t of “security-based swap” from the Rules and Regulations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
“'The term security-based swap ... does not include an agreement, contract, or transaction that is based on or references a qualifying foreign futures contract ... on the debt securities of any one or more of the foreign governments ... provided that such agreement, contract, or transaction satisfies the following conditions: [there follows an interminable list of conditions]”[1]
We are left with the rather unsettling conclusion that anything else in the universe is, or could be, or it is not beyond that question that it could in suitable circumstances be considered as, or deemed to be, a security-based swap. A Cornish pasty; an echidna; a map of Tasmania; a motorised rick-shaw: all are, or at any rate could be, “security-based swaps” for whatever purposes might hove into view should you be a regulator empowered by the Securities Exchange Act.