Applicability: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 12: Line 12:
That’s not how a contract works, peeps.
That’s not how a contract works, peeps.


{{c|Plain English}}
Fun fact: “[[relevant]]” appears 272 times in the {{eqdefs}}, and “[[applicable]]” 124 times.
 
{{Plainenglish}}

Revision as of 09:10, 17 April 2018

Nominalisation on steroids. A noun that should have settled on being a verb many years ago.

An old favourite, applicability started out life as a verb (“apply”), became a noun (“application”), became an adjective (“applicable”, shape-shifted then into a new verb — albeit a passive one — (“to be applicable”), and eventually settled on a life of tiresome nounitude in its adult form as “applicability”.

But at what cost to the reader? Without thinking on it, choose your favourite:

This clause applies.
This clause is applicable.

Also a more pernickety but equally redundant way of saying “relevant”: “The users shall comply with all applicable contractual provisions” — seeming to suggest that users might be compelled otherwise to comply with provisions that didn’t apply.

That’s not how a contract works, peeps.

Fun fact: “relevant” appears 272 times in the 2002 ISDA Equity Derivatives Definitions, and “applicable” 124 times.

Plain English Anatomy™ Noun | Verb | Adjective | Adverb | Preposition | Conjunction | Latin | Germany | Flannel | Legal triplicate | Nominalisation | Murder your darlings