Applicability: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) m (Amwelladmin moved page Applicability to Applicable) |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| 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. | ||
{{ | 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. | |||
Latest revision as of 13:12, 18 July 2019
|
Towards more picturesque speech™
|
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.