82,853
edits
Applicability: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (2 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]]''”. | 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]]''”. | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
''This clause '''is applicable'''.'' <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. | |||