82,891
edits
And/or: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|plainenglish|[[File:Andor.png|thumb| | {{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. | ||
{{f| | |||
“{{f|And/or}}” ''means'' “{{f|or}}”, because “{{f|or}}” ''includes'' “{{f|and}}”. | “{{f|And/or}}” ''means'' “{{f|or}}”, because “{{f|or}}” ''includes'' “{{f|and}}”. | ||
| Line 14: | Line 13: | ||
:{{or}} | :{{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. | 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. | ||
| Line 22: | Line 21: | ||
Go back to your draft and strike all examples, and we shall never speak of this again. | 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}} | *{{tag|profound ontological uncertainty}} | ||
{{c3|conjunction|Plain English|ISIA}} | {{c3|conjunction|Plain English|ISIA}} | ||
{{c|Paradox}} | |||