83,584
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
(14 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|plainenglish|[[File:Andor.png|thumb|center|500px|for extra cosmological points, try the preferred EU formulation.]]}}{{f|And/or}} is the [[legal eagle]]’s equivalent of a damp kipper handshake. Avoid it. There is no more obvious sign that a text is in need of a [[plain English]] reaming. | |||
“{{f|And/or}}” ''means'' “{{f|or}}”, because “{{f|or}}” ''includes'' “{{f|and}}”. | |||
That’s it. | |||
===In [[tedious]] detail=== | |||
“{{f|And/or}}” has a face only a mother could love. It is borne of the [[fear]] that, when considering alternatives ''any'' of which leads to a given outcome, things might somehow be different if they ''all'' occur. | |||
There is no grounds for this fear. Logically, this is how one defines | There is no grounds for this fear. Logically, this is how one defines {{f|and}} and {{f|or}}: | ||
:{{and}} | |||
:{{or}} | |||
}} | |||
===The and/or paradox=== | |||
Besides, [[and/or]] is not just ugly; it’s circular. It presents as a {{t|paradox}}, because of that {{tag|slash}}. Now the slash is not a part of idiomatic punctuation in the English language. It’s a decoration with no fixed grammatical meaning. To use a [[slash]] in legal writing is to confess that the ordinary, punctuated words of the English language have defeated you. | |||
In | In “[[and/or]]”, that slash means — can ''only'' mean — “''{{f|or}}''”. So by saying “{{f|and/or}}” you are really saying “and, ''or'' or”. But to be hermetically sealed and consistent, shouldn’t you make one further clarifying step, and say “{{f|and}}, {{f|and/or}} {{f|or}}”? | ||
AND DO YOU NOW SEE THE INFINITE REGRESSION YOU HAVE SET IN MOTION? | AND DO YOU NOW SEE THE INFINITE REGRESSION YOU HAVE SET IN MOTION? | ||
Go back to your draft and strike all examples, and we shall never speak of this again. | Go back to your draft and strike all examples, and we shall never speak of this again. | ||
===Classic and/or fails=== | |||
Spotted in, where else?, an [[NDA]]: | |||
{{quote|Disclosing Party may demand the return, and/or destruction and/or erasure of Confidential Information at any time.}} | |||
You can’t have it both ways: You can’t return it ''and'' destroy it. | |||
{{sa}} | |||
*{{tag|profound ontological uncertainty}} | |||
{{c3|conjunction|Plain English|ISIA}} | {{c3|conjunction|Plain English|ISIA}} | ||
{{c|Paradox}} |