82,883
edits
Semantic structure: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{a|drafting|'''On what kind of ball may be used with what kind of game''' <br> A single, branching proposition where the subject is the ball: <small>{{subtable| 1. A ball: <b...") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
}}{{subtable| | }}{{subtable| | ||
[[File:Logic Tree 3.png|frameless|center|But organising by code, then colour, is simplest of all.]] | [[File:Logic Tree 3.png|frameless|center|But organising by code, then colour, is simplest of all.]] | ||
}}</small>}} | }}</small>}}It is easy to forget is how important is the logical structure of your writing. Not just the paragraph organisation, but the semantic structure underlying the sentences themselves. | ||
Any statement boils down to a logical proposition, and so on. It is | Any statement boils down to a logical proposition, and so on. It is like software code, only instead of subroutines, conditions, logic gates, if/then statements, lawyers call them [[Obligations binding|obligations]], [[Rights cumulative|rights]], [[Discretion|discretions]], [[proviso]]s, [[incluso]]s, [[option]]s, [[Definitions|definition]]. | ||
For example, an obligation is an if-then statement; option is an either-or gate. Some legal operators like “([[whether or not]]...)”, “([[Including, but not limited to|including without limitation]]...)”, “([[for the avoidance of doubt]]...)”, “([[May, but shall not be obliged to|may, but need not]]...)” do not constrain or expand the propositions they act on and can be omitted from a logic map (just as they should be omitted from the ''draft'', dammit). | For example, an obligation is an if-then statement; option is an either-or gate. Some legal operators like “([[whether or not]]...)”, “([[Including, but not limited to|including without limitation]]...)”, “([[for the avoidance of doubt]]...)”, “([[May, but shall not be obliged to|may, but need not]]...)” do not constrain or expand the propositions they act on and can be omitted from a logic map (just as they should be omitted from the ''draft'', dammit). | ||
| Line 97: | Line 97: | ||
There is doubtless some information theory that optimises the logical structure, but intuitively it seems to us common options should be delayed as far as possible, and where games are largely common, separating out the points where they differ into a separate set of propositions may help. | There is doubtless some information theory that optimises the logical structure, but intuitively it seems to us common options should be delayed as far as possible, and where games are largely common, separating out the points where they differ into a separate set of propositions may help. | ||
===Paragraph hierarchy as a convolution tell=== | |||
We are anal about multilevel [[paragraph numbering]]. It forces you to reveal the skeleton of your writing — handy for skim-reading and orienting yourself to a long document and it will quickly reveal a flabby semantic structure. If you need seven or eight numbering levels to articulate a commercial proposition, you're probably doing it wrong. | |||