Singulars and plurals: Difference between revisions

Singulars and plurals (view source)

Revision as of 10:14, 18 November 2019

726 bytes added , 18 November 2019

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{pe}}To what end the forensic remark “All references to the singular [[shall]] include the [[plural]], and vice versa”?
+{{pe}}:'''Cashier''': Two pounds and five pence, please, love.
+:'''Den''': Two quid?
+:Cashier: That's right. Two pounds and five pence, please.
+:'''Den''': Two quid for one bloody sausage?
+:'''Cashier''': That's right, love. Two pounds and five pence.
+:Den: Two quid for one bloody sausage!
+:'''Cashier''': It was clearly marked, love. “Sausage, beans and chips, two pounds and five pence.”
+:''(Later)''
+:'''Den''': Wait a minute! It says “sausa''ges''” up there, not just one sausage! Look at that! Look, it says “sausages”! Where’s me other sausage, then?
+::—''Comic Strip Presents: The Bad News Tour''
-To your correspondent, none at all. This is throat-clearing, pointless text which, once in, benefits from the loving embrace of the [[anal paradox]], but serves no purpose beyond the attorney’s noble pursuit of prolixity. No lawyer will ever object to it, but — and ''because'' — it plays no role in unravelling the practical meaning of the legal contract. Can you imagine standing up in court and learnedly submitting that a [[plural]] did not include the [[singular]]? Let us turn to our favourite thought experiment: a testy exchange between {{jerrold}} and {{cocklecarrot}}, knee deep as they usually are in bitter [[litigation]].
+To what end the forensic remark “All references to the singular [[shall]] include the [[plural]], and vice versa”?
-Good news: just such an exchange features in the pages of the {{jclr}}!
+To your correspondent, none at all. This is throat-clearing, pointless text which, once in, benefits from the loving embrace of the [[anal paradox]], but serves no purpose beyond the attorney’s noble pursuit of prolixity. No lawyer will ever object to it, but — and ''because'' — it plays no role in unravelling the practical meaning of the legal contract, bar the obvious ones, where a singular does not include the plural, and this language would be a total nonsense.
+Can you imagine standing up in court and learnedly submitting that a [[plural]] did not include the [[singular]]?  Good news: just such an exchange features in the pages of the {{jclr}}!Let us turn to our go-to thought experiment: a testy exchange between {{jerrold}} and {{cocklecarrot}}, knee deep as they usually are in bitter [[litigation]].
 {{court scene|II|iv|stares morosely at his brogues, silently cursing the wasted shoe-polish in those nasty little holes|rises briskly, causing his chair to scrape flatulently on the parquet floor. {{cocklecarrot}} raises an eyebrow, and Sir Jerrold smiles thinly}}