There are no metaphors in a trust deed: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

There are no metaphors in a trust deed (view source)

Revision as of 11:56, 17 November 2021

1,333 bytes added , 17 November 2021

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{maxim |There are no metaphors in a trust deed}} speaks to the facile attempt of lawyers to remove ambiguity from a language which is intrinsically shot through with it.
+{{a|maxim|}}{{maxim |There are no metaphors in a trust deed}} speaks to the facile attempt of lawyers to remove ambiguity from a language which is intrinsically shot through with it. Legal language is a special variety of discourse: It is meant to be a bit like a racing car. Amazing at its particular purpose; useless for anything else. The same way you wouldn’t take a Formula One car to the shops, you wouldn’t speak to your children in legalese.<ref>This is not to say that no lawyers ''do'' speak to their children in legalese, however. Some are so inured to their habit of convolution that they can’t help it.</ref>
-{{draft}}
+“There are no [[metaphor]]s in a trust deed” because legal language is designed to remove — maybe minimise — any possibility for alternative interpretation. This is not meant to be some [[hermeneutic]] dialog between reader and text here where everyone is free to play their own language games — the words are meant to carry their own, singular, categorical, unambiguous meaning — so there is no room for figurative interpretations and Gadamer can stick it up his jumper — and freight it to all of the world.
+So it’s odd, then, that specialist legal language is such ''porridge''.
+It ''is'' porridge, but railing against it, and saying it should not be so, is to miss the point. The point is to understand the [[System analysis|system dynamics]] that have made it so. That is the key to delivering the world from porridge.
+{{Sa}}
+*[[Semantic code project]]
+{{ref}}