Without limiting the generality of the foregoing: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 4: Line 4:


Why are the [[Mediocre lawyer|best-paid professional writers in the world]] such ham-hocked users of their own language?
Why are the [[Mediocre lawyer|best-paid professional writers in the world]] such ham-hocked users of their own language?
{{seealso}}
{{sa}}
*[[Implied term]]
*[[Implied term]]
*[[without limitation]]
*[[without limitation]]

Revision as of 11:02, 19 January 2020

A tedious articulation of a pointless contrivance: the “without limitation” clause.

See, you don’t need to say “without limiting the generality of the foregoing...”, because you can just say “without limitation”, and you don’t need to say “without limitation...” because it carries no semantic content whatsoever. Unless you have described a limitation one will not be implied, either as a matter of basic linguistic construction or, for that matter, common law. If you have described a limitation, then what the hell are you doing writing “without limitation”?

Why are the best-paid professional writers in the world such ham-hocked users of their own language?

See also

Plain English Anatomy™ Noun | Verb | Adjective | Adverb | Preposition | Conjunction | Latin | Germany | Flannel | Legal triplicate | Nominalisation | Murder your darlings