Next following: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
The “next following” day is a redundancy that speaks to that nervousness that the day ''you'' have in mind — namely, the one immediately after the one you’re thinking about — might not be the one ''your adversary'' does. For ''a'' day “following” this one might, conceivably, fall some indeterminate time — four days, eight days, who knows, even three hundred and fifty-seven days? — in the future. ''All'' days after this one “follow” this one; unless you say the “[[next following|''next'' following]]” day, cannot be sure it will be the one tomorrow. | The “next following” day is a redundancy that speaks to that nervousness that the day ''you'' have in mind — namely, the one immediately after the one you’re thinking about — might not be the one ''your adversary'' does. For ''a'' day “following” this one might, conceivably, fall some indeterminate time — four days, eight days, who knows, even three hundred and fifty-seven days? — in the future. ''All'' days after this one “follow” this one; unless you say the “[[next following|''next'' following]]” day, cannot be sure it will be the one tomorrow. | ||
This is the kind of argument you’d expect from ''[[Violet Elizabeth | This is the kind of argument you’d expect from ''[[Violet Elizabeth Bott]]'' on ''Just William''. Allow me to channel my inner [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richmal_Crompton Richmal Crompton]: | ||
:“Violet-Elizabeth, give me my rubber back.” <br> | :“Violet-Elizabeth, give me my rubber back.” <br> | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
If you encounter such a fellow, and wish to engage on the argument — if you can resist the temptation to administer a restorative beating — you can always use the word “[[next]]”. | If you encounter such a fellow, and wish to engage on the argument — if you can resist the temptation to administer a restorative beating — you can always use the word “[[next]]”. | ||
{{sa}} | |||
*[[Shubtill v Director of Public Prosecutions]] | |||
{{egg}} | {{egg}} | ||
{{draft}} | {{draft}} | ||
Revision as of 06:59, 19 October 2022
|
The sure sign of a lawyer who was soundly, but not sufficiently, beaten as a clerk.
The “next following” day is a redundancy that speaks to that nervousness that the day you have in mind — namely, the one immediately after the one you’re thinking about — might not be the one your adversary does. For a day “following” this one might, conceivably, fall some indeterminate time — four days, eight days, who knows, even three hundred and fifty-seven days? — in the future. All days after this one “follow” this one; unless you say the “next following” day, cannot be sure it will be the one tomorrow.
This is the kind of argument you’d expect from Violet Elizabeth Bott on Just William. Allow me to channel my inner Richmal Crompton:
- “Violet-Elizabeth, give me my rubber back.”
- “I shan’t.”
- “But you said you would.”
- “I most thertainly did not.”
- “You said you’d give it to me on the following day.”
- “Tho I did. But not thith following day. Another one. In Theptember, I shouldn’t be thurprised.”
It pains me, readers, to think an adult learned in the ways of the law could be vexed by such a thought.
Firstly, a following business day is not the same thing as the following business day. That definite article restricts you to a single day.
If you encounter such a fellow, and wish to engage on the argument — if you can resist the temptation to administer a restorative beating — you can always use the word “next”.