82,891
edits
Definitions: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
===''How'' to use definitions=== | ===''How'' to use definitions=== | ||
'''How many'''? Err on the side of fewer rather than more, but a decent rule of thumb is ''how much text do you save?''. The longer a turgid expression is; the more it appears, the more justified you are in defining it. | |||
'''Where'''? If a term appears throughout the agreement, put its definition in a glossary or definitions section at the ''end''. This is a core [[design]] principle. Definitions should be bits of extraneous detail that are not critical to the general thrust of the text, but useful amplification should a reader need it: rather like footnotes. For God’s sake, don’t put them at the ''start'' of an agreement. Would you start reading a book with the footnotes? If the expression only appears in one clause, define it inline in the clause. Guiding principle: how easy is it to find? Is the reader’s “[[user experience]]” better putting the definition at the back or inline? Use your common sense. | |||
===''When'' to use definitions=== | ===''When'' to use definitions=== | ||
| Line 18: | Line 20: | ||
===When ''not'' to use definitions=== | ===When ''not'' to use definitions=== | ||
''When the | ''When the meaning you propose to give to your definition is obvious''. Everyone ''knows'' what the “[[EU]]” means. Everyone ''knows'' what “[[MiFID 2]]” means. Everyone (''right''?) knows what “[[ERISA]]” means. | ||
This is especially when the proposition sought to be achieved is not in the slightest bit controversial in the first place. Take the dear old [[financial collateral regulations]], which impose sensible standardisations and strike out pointless formalities when registering security interests on financial assets. Everyone knows what they are, everyone likes them, everyone agrees they save time, effort and [[box-ticking]] angst. So do you need to define exactly what they are? No. So, does this markup at any value to anyone in the world, in any way whatsoever? | This is especially when the proposition sought to be achieved is not in the slightest bit controversial in the first place. Take the dear old [[financial collateral regulations]], which impose sensible standardisations and strike out pointless formalities when registering security interests on financial assets. Everyone knows what they are, everyone likes them, everyone agrees they save time, effort and [[box-ticking]] angst. So do you need to define exactly what they are? No. So, does this markup at any value to anyone in the world, in any way whatsoever? | ||
| Line 25: | Line 27: | ||
''Twat''. | ''Twat''. | ||
===The definition as [[Biggs Hoson]]=== | |||
The final way to use definitions is as some kind of hymn to pedantry. This appeals to fans of [[Havid Dilbert]]’s programme to find a complete and consistent set of axiomatic legal propositions. [[Dilbert’s programme]] eschews the undefined use of any expression, however banal or self-evident, in any agreement, on the grounds that it opens the way to [[indeterminacy]]. Thus where we find undefined words, we define them ''exactly as they are'', [[to avoid of doubt|for the avoidance of a doubt]] so miniscule it heartily crosses the threshold between completeness and paranoia. | |||
{{quote|An insured person (the “'''insured person'''”) may cancel (“'''cancel'''”) a policy (the “'''policy'''”) by providing us as insurer (“'''us'''” or the “'''insurer'''”) a written notice (the “'''written notice'''”) of the cancellation (the “'''cancellation'''”).<ref>We were inspired by the ever-resourceful, ever-patient {{plainlinks| | |||
Andrew Pegler Mediahttps://www.andrewpeglermedia.com.au|Andrew Pegler Media}} for this example, which we fully admit to exaggerating.</ref>}} | |||
There is a vigorous debate going on in the halls of eaglery as to whether these definitions add anything at all: do they, at their limit, convey some asymptotic safety by they silently constraining buried metaphorical dimensions? There are those who say they do — that this effect, however subliminal is there: this is, in effect, a surprising instance of a [[Biggs Hoson]] — and those that say they cannot: delimiting a textual artefact to ''exactly itself'' cannot convey even that minimal particle of legal meaning that the great [[J. M. F. Biggs]] once so famously discovered. | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Certainty]] | |||
*[[Doubt]] | |||
*{{isdaprov|Definitions}} - {{isdama}} | *{{isdaprov|Definitions}} - {{isdama}} | ||
*{{gmslaprov|Definitions}} - {{gmsla}} | *{{gmslaprov|Definitions}} - {{gmsla}} | ||