Applicability: Difference between revisions

Applicability (view source)

957 bytes added , 18 July 2019

no edit summary

82,853

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-[[Nominalisation]] on steroids. A {{tag|noun}} that should have settled on being a {{tag|verb}} many years ago.
+{{pe}}[[Nominalisation]] on steroids. A {{tag|noun}} that should have settled on being a {{tag|verb}} many years ago.
-{{c|Plain English}}
+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 {{tag|verb}} — albeit a {{tag|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'''.'' <br>
+''This clause '''is applicable'''.'' <br>
+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 {{eqdefs}}, and “[[applicable]]” 124 times.