Applicability: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
no edit summary
(Created page with "nominalisation on steroids.")
 
No edit summary
 
(10 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
[[nominalisation]] on steroids.
{{pe}}[[Nominalisation]] on steroids. A {{tag|noun}} that should have settled on being a {{tag|verb}} many years ago.
 
An old favourite, [[applicability]] started out life as a verb (“''[[apply]]''”), became a noun (“''[[application]]''”), became an adjective (“''[[applicable]]''”, shape-shifted then into a new {{tag|verb}} — albeit a {{tag|passive}} one — (“to be ''[[applicable]]''”), and eventually settled on a life of tiresome nounitude in its adult form as “''[[applicability]]''”.
 
But at what cost to the reader? Without thinking on it, choose your favourite:
 
''This clause '''applies'''.'' <br>
''This clause '''is applicable'''.'' <br>
 
Also a more pernickety but equally redundant way of saying “[[relevant]]”: “The users [[shall]] comply with all [[applicable]] contractual provisions” — seeming to suggest that users might be compelled otherwise to comply with provisions that didn’t apply.
 
That’s not how a contract works, peeps.
 
Fun fact: “[[relevant]]” appears 272 times in the {{eqdefs}}, and “[[applicable]]” 124 times.

Navigation menu