81,695
edits
Relevant: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) 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: | To pull a random example from the {{eqderivs}}: | ||
:''{{Template:2002 ISDA Equity Derivatives Definitions 1.16}}'' | :''{{Template:2002 ISDA Equity Derivatives Definitions 1.16}}'' | ||
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}}? | 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 an Issuer of ''[[irrelevant]]'' {{eqderivprov|Shares}}? | ||
This author says “no”. | This author says “no”. | ||