Want to see a splendid example of verbosity when the simple word arse (or even ass) would have sufficed?
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
The Official Mind is a dismal thing indeedNovember 10th, 2005 |
 18 comments to The Official Mind is a dismal thing indeed |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
OMDG. This is for real, isn’t it?
Yes. I found out about it from an FT article. I know we write a lot about credibility (and the lack thereof) of the mainstream media, but in this case, I am prepared to take it on trust as a real example… 😉
Obviously written by someone suffering from a near-terminal, certainly accute, case of autoproctoscopy.
Erm… could someone please tell me repeat to me what the quote was, as I seem to be unable to load up Adriana’s blog properly for some unknown reason. I’m dying to know!
– found in county ordinance from Pennsylvania.
Mikes, that’s strange because it works fine for me!
asus: yeah well it’s 1am where I am and I’m falling asleep – so I can’t be bothered to think about sorting whatever the problem is just yet.
Simon Jester: I assume that’s the quote – thanks. It’s bloody weird.
Talking through the parameters of a split personality.
Imagine threatening to kick somebody in that location.
Yeah, it’s funny, but lest we forget, the point of the paragraph is to establish a legal definition of the human hiney. The law is full of this sort of thing, because the success of prosecutions often turns on definitional minutiae.
Freezer Burn: and the fact the state feels such things are within their remit is the probem. What a person is wearing (or not) when dancing should not be a subject for prosecution.
Perhaps not, but the point is that a great deal of law does depend on precise definitions of things, and sometimes these definitions can seem strange to the casual reader. How would you frame a precise legal definition of the human posterior such that there would be no doubt what was and was not included?
The small print on any contract can be intimidating and confusing to many people, but it is in reality extremely precise and – if you understand it – it leaves you in no doubt whatsoever about what you can and cannot do. It’s often not possible to express the same precision in simple language, as a perusal of “plain English” legal wording will instantly reveal – it’s full of doubt, vagueness and ambiguity & one suspects the legal fraternity just love it for that very reason.
EG
While I’m all for precision in language and I second EG’s general point, I’d contradict the assertion that the small print on any contract leaves you in no doubt. A contract or statute, even one using terms that have precisely established legal meaning, can be a very ambiguous thing if it doesn’t hang together properly, or if it is not well designed to cover the actual issues which arise in the circumstances.
What’s more, there is vagueness all the way down. However skilled the draftsman and however comprehensive his understanding of the context, the effect is to reduce the scale of ambiguity, never to destroy it all together.
Making the ambiguity small enough for the vast majority of cases is a worthwhile ambition, however.
There’s one more problem which is particularly common with moral legislation but also pops up in other contexts (an example close to my heart being the Identity Cards Bill) and even in contract. It is where the drafting embodies implicit assumptions about values, the functioning of society or custom and usage–the facts of the world within which the document must eventually be interpreted–that are either not understood by everyone in the same way or plain wrong. Though rarer, hidden axioms are a bigger danger than imprecisions since they are less susceptible to compromise.
A simpler version of the hidden-axiom problem arises when those involved don’t know what the precise legal meanings of the terms they use are. And this is more often assymetric, with some people knowing more than others what they are doing, which is where precision becomes in effect fraudulent and encourages the fans of “plain English” to throw it away.
Since we are discussing precision, I note I should have written “bad hidden axioms”. Of course hidden axioms can’t be eliminated any more than ambiguity. The trick is to avoid assuming things that aren’t true or aren’t fully and irrevocably agreed.
Surely it merely illustrates the necessity of understanding what you’re doing when you sign a contract – i.e. understanding exactly what you’re committing yourself to? I sometimes think the proponents of “palin English” betray nothing more than intellectual indolence since they plainly can’t be bothered taking the trouble to understand precise language.
EG
“Palin English” – a dialect of Standard English employed on foreign travel to affect an air of benign solidarity with native residents while simultaneously sharing a joke with the camera about them. Archaically also used to describe those from the Oxbridge who affected northern accents for comedic effect [now obsolete].
Sorry Euan, I couldn’t not bite.
Since there’s now a linguist in the house, I’d better improve my English and try to preview my spelling…
EG
Oh, I’ve already committed more shameful typos in my first day here than you’ll have done in a year, Euan. I’d love to be a linguist, but I’m honestly just a dabbler. And my jokes aren’t that funny.