81,695
edits
Relevant: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Like the even ghastlier “[[applicable]]”, an adjective that carries precisely no semantic content. For, if a concept is ''not'' relevant, [[it goes without saying]] that it is not — well, ''relevant'' to the subject at hand. So one hardly needs to add a qualifier to distinguish the things you are not talking about from ones that you are. | {{pe}}Like the even ghastlier “[[applicable]]”, an adjective that carries precisely no semantic content. For, if a concept is ''not'' relevant, [[it goes without saying]] that it is not — well, ''relevant'' to the subject at hand. So one hardly needs to add a qualifier to distinguish the things you are not talking about from ones that you are. | ||
To pull a random example | To pull a random example from the {{eqdefs}}: | ||
:''{{Template:2002 ISDA Equity Derivatives Definitions 1.16}}'' | |||
This author says “no”. | Now this seems like a fine thing to say, until you put the contrary case: is can you imagine a court finding in favour of a counterparty claiming to labour under the misapprehension that he meant to talk about an Issuer of ''[[irrelevant]]'' {{eqderivprov|Shares}}? | ||
This author says “no”. Fun fact: “[[relevant]]” appears 272 times in the {{eqdefs}}, and “[[applicable]]” 124 times. | |||
===The stock [[Young Ones]] reference=== | ===The stock [[Young Ones]] reference=== | ||
| Line 9: | Line 12: | ||
{{video nasty}} | {{video nasty}} | ||
{{ref}} | {{ref}} | ||