82,893
edits
Plain English in ten little words: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
*[[Leverage]] — jargon that is designed to make the writer look wise, and not the reader enlightened. | *[[Leverage]] — jargon that is designed to make the writer look wise, and not the reader enlightened. | ||
*[[Judge]] — For whom are you writing? Not posterity, not a judge, not to cover your backside, | *[[Judge]] — For whom are you writing? Not posterity, not a judge, not to cover your backside, | ||
*[[Deemed]] — avoid legal tics. Things that, yes, you might be able to justify on tendentious logical or ontological grounds, but which ''don’t make a damn of difference in the real world''. So it might be true that the redemption amount is “[[an amount equal to]] the final price” — yes, it is true the redemption amount isn’t, from a brutalised ontological perspective, the final price; in a conceptual scheme they are different things, but they're identical, and you lose nothing, except a few dead scales of pendatic skin, by saying the “redemption amount ''is'' the final price”. Likewise “this shall be [[deemed]] to be that” what, practically is the difference between “being deemed to be something”, or (worse) “being deemed to be an amount equal to something” and just “''being'' something”? | *[[Deemed]] — avoid legal tics. Things that, yes, you might be able to justify on tendentious logical or ontological grounds, but which ''don’t make a damn of difference in the real world''. So it might be true that the redemption amount is “[[an amount equal to]] the final price” — yes, it is true the redemption amount isn’t, from a brutalised ontological perspective, the final price; in a conceptual scheme they are different things, but they're identical, and you lose nothing, except a few dead scales of pendatic skin, by saying the “redemption amount ''is'' the final price”. Likewise “this shall be [[deemed]] to be that” what, practically is the difference between “being deemed to be something”, or (worse) “being deemed to be an amount equal to something” and just “''being'' something”? Exception to the rule: “equivalent”. Here there is a real-world difference — at least in that purblind topsy-turvy world occupied by accountants. It all relates to the difference between a title transfer and a pledge. But the principle remains: ''unless there is a legal, accounting or tax distinction that one might draw between the tedious and the plain articulations, use the plain one. | ||