Relevant: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
381 bytes added ,  17 April 2018
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
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.
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, “{{Template:2002 ISDA Equity Derivatives Definitions 1.6}}”. 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 [[irrelevant]] {{eqderivprov|Shares}}?
 
This author says “no”.


===The stock [[Young Ones]] reference===
===The stock [[Young Ones]] reference===
Line 7: Line 11:


{{plainenglish}}
{{plainenglish}}
{{ref}}

Navigation menu