May: Difference between revisions

125 bytes added ,  1 February 2021
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 12: Line 12:
“Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing ''[which is about something else altogether]'', and [[for the avoidance of doubt]], Party B ''may'' telephone his elderly aunt at any time without limitation” is ''not'' a good use of “may”, or the trees on which such a pointless sentence may, [[for the time being]] and [[from time to time]], be printed.
“Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing ''[which is about something else altogether]'', and [[for the avoidance of doubt]], Party B ''may'' telephone his elderly aunt at any time without limitation” is ''not'' a good use of “may”, or the trees on which such a pointless sentence may, [[for the time being]] and [[from time to time]], be printed.
===“[[Shall be entitled to]]”===
===“[[Shall be entitled to]]”===
“[[Shall be entitled to]]” means, exactly, “may” — they are exact synonyms — but it is so much ''worse'' a piece of legal psychology. How so?
“[[Shall be entitled to]]” means, exactly, “may” — they are exact synonyms — but it is so much ''worse'' a piece of legal psychology.  


It is so [[in your face]]. Firstly it uses that equivocal staple of fusty compulsion, “[[shall]]” — whereas, whether the construction is needed or not, there is no compulsion. Then it talks about ''entitlement''. Perhaps this is just me, but this has the air about it not of the gentle citizen equably and quietly enjoying her rights in a way [[calculated]] to offend no-one. Rather it is the wilfully aggravating disposition of bloody-minded troll, marching up and down her boundary, broadcasting Billy Ray Cyrus LPs to the neighborhood and brazenly waving a Confederate flag where she knows her unionist neighbour can not help but see it.
How so?
 
Because it is so ''[[in your face]]''. First, it uses that equivocal staple of fusty compulsion, “[[shall]]” — but, however redundant the construction might otherwise be, it involves no compulsion.  
 
Second, then it talks, gratuitously, in terms of ''entitlement''. It acts “all entitled”. Now perhaps this is just me, but this has the air about it not of the gentle citizen pottering about her own plot of land, equably and quietly enjoying her rights in a way [[calculated]] to offend no-one. Rather it is the wilfully aggravating disposition of bloody-minded troll, marching up and down her boundary, broadcasting Billy Ray Cyrus LPs to the neighborhood and brazenly waving a Confederate flag where she knows her unionist neighbour can not help but see it.


{{sa}}
{{sa}}