82,469
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|g| | {{a|g|{{image|Rene Descartes|jpg|I ''think'' this is [[René Descartes]]. But ...}} | ||
{{subtable|The [[JC]] likes to rush in, as you know, where fools fear to tread. So let us try to achieve what Descartes could not. If you cannot ''avoid'' it, at least put a ''name'' on it. So let us — [[for the avoidance of doubt]] — thoroughly define what we ''mean'' by “[[doubt]]”: | {{subtable|The [[JC]] likes to rush in, as you know, where fools fear to tread. So let us try to achieve what Descartes could not. If you cannot ''avoid'' it, at least put a ''name'' on it. So let us — [[for the avoidance of doubt]] — thoroughly define what we ''mean'' by “[[doubt]]”: | ||
===The meaning of doubt=== | ===The meaning of doubt=== | ||
{{ftaod}} | {{ftaod}} | ||
}}}}{{quote| | }}}}{{quote| | ||
{{rice pudding and income tax}}}} | |||
===Should a lawyer ever say these words?=== | ===Should a lawyer ever say these words?=== | ||
When one whose [[Legal eagle|livelihood]] attests to unusual semantic facility — uses the ugly expression “[[for the avoidance of doubt]]”, she surrenders without a shot to the demands of the English language. Even as a piece of English the phrase is hideous: who [[Nominalisation|converts]] “avoid” into a [[noun]]? What kind of glass-half-empty misanthrope sets as a guiding objective ''not being confusing''? | When one whose [[Legal eagle|livelihood]] attests to unusual semantic facility — uses the ugly expression “[[for the avoidance of doubt]]”, she surrenders without a shot to the demands of the English language. Even as a piece of English the phrase is hideous: who [[Nominalisation|converts]] “avoid” into a [[noun]]? What kind of glass-half-empty misanthrope sets as a guiding objective ''not being confusing''? |