82,891
edits
And/or: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "Means “or”, because “or” includes “and”. And is "a Boolean operator which gives the value one ''if and only if all the operands are one'', and otherwise has a val...") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (26 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|plainenglish|[[File:Andor.png|thumb|center|500px|for extra cosmological points, try the preferred EU formulation.]]}}{{f|And/or}} is the [[legal eagle]]’s equivalent of a damp kipper handshake. Avoid it. There is no more obvious sign that a text is in need of a [[plain English]] reaming. | |||
And | “{{f|And/or}}” ''means'' “{{f|or}}”, because “{{f|or}}” ''includes'' “{{f|and}}”. | ||
That’s it. | |||
===In [[tedious]] detail=== | |||
“{{f|And/or}}” has a face only a mother could love. It is borne of the [[fear]] that, when considering alternatives ''any'' of which leads to a given outcome, things might somehow be different if they ''all'' occur. | |||
{{ | There is no grounds for this fear. Logically, this is how one defines {{f|and}} and {{f|or}}: | ||
:{{and}} | |||
:{{or}} | |||
===The and/or paradox=== | |||
Besides, [[and/or]] is not just ugly; it’s circular. It presents as a {{t|paradox}}, because of that {{tag|slash}}. Now the slash is not a part of idiomatic punctuation in the English language. It’s a decoration with no fixed grammatical meaning. To use a [[slash]] in legal writing is to confess that the ordinary, punctuated words of the English language have defeated you. | |||
In “[[and/or]]”, that slash means — can ''only'' mean — “''{{f|or}}''”. So by saying “{{f|and/or}}” you are really saying “and, ''or'' or”. But to be hermetically sealed and consistent, shouldn’t you make one further clarifying step, and say “{{f|and}}, {{f|and/or}} {{f|or}}”? | |||
AND DO YOU NOW SEE THE INFINITE REGRESSION YOU HAVE SET IN MOTION? | |||
Go back to your draft and strike all examples, and we shall never speak of this again. | |||
===Classic and/or fails=== | |||
Spotted in, where else?, an [[NDA]]: | |||
{{quote|Disclosing Party may demand the return, and/or destruction and/or erasure of Confidential Information at any time.}} | |||
You can’t have it both ways: You can’t return it ''and'' destroy it. | |||
{{sa}} | |||
*{{tag|profound ontological uncertainty}} | |||
{{c3|conjunction|Plain English|ISIA}} | |||
{{c|Paradox}} | |||