And/or: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

And/or (view source)

Revision as of 14:10, 7 June 2023

1,708 bytes added , 7 June 2023

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-Means “[[or]]”, because “or” includes “[[and]]”.
+{{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}} <br>
+“{{f|And/or}}” ''means'' “{{f|or}}”, because “{{f|or}}” ''includes'' “{{f|and}}”.
-{{or}}
-It's utterly defeatist drafting, because of the presence of that slash. That slash admits that the plain, punctuated words of the English language have defeated you.
+That’s it.
-Never speak of this again.
+===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.
-{{c2|egg|ISIA}}
+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}}