Real-World Example of the Importance of Grammar 1

[AnotherHiggins]

Grammatical blunder may force Rogers Communications Inc. to pay an extra $2.13-million.

[tt]_____
[blue]-John[/blue][/tt]
[tab][red]The plural of anecdote is not data[/red]

Help us help you. Please read FAQ181-2886 before posting.

 

[Scott24x7]

You know, reading it even the first time through, I read it exactly as that... with the comma there, they could cancel with 1 year notice at any time... Hmmm they should have paid more attention. However, if I were their lawyers, I would be pulling that out of the isolation of the sentance, and applying it to the broader spirit of the contract, and real intent, which usually negates that kind of silly claim from happening... I'm sure that's the legal route they will take.


Best Regards,
Scott

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, and no simpler."

 

[Grenage]

Yup, I wouldn't say that was a grammatical mistake - that just looks like a complete blunder!


Carlsberg don't run I.T departments, but if they did they'd probably be more fun.

 

[strongm]

>applying it to the broader spirit of the contract, and real intent, which usually negates that kind of silly claim from happening

Read the article again - they've already tried that approach, and it was rejected

 

[hawks]

I wonder how many of Rogers customers/vendors are looking at their long term contracts right now.

 

[AnotherHiggins]

->applying it to the broader spirit of the contract, and real intent, which usually negates that kind of silly claim from happening

Not if Aliant entered into the contract with the understanding that is supported by what is written

[tt]_____
[blue]-John[/blue][/tt]
[tab][red]The plural of anecdote is not data[/red]

Help us help you. Please read FAQ181-2886 before posting.

 

[tsdragon]

As strongm said, Rogers has already tried the "intent" defense and it was rejected.

The problem with paragraphs like that is that you tend to read them as you expect them to be, not necessarily as they are actually written. Rogers lawyers expected the contract to be for five full years minimum, and that's what they saw. They didn't parse the sentence to see what it actually said.

I wonder if Aliant intended the contract to be for at least five full years too, and then later found a way out of it, or if they intentionally put the extra comma in there hoping that noone at Rogers would notice the difference.

All you English majors start polishing up your resumes. You're about to get a big boost in employment as companies start hiring grammarians to go over their contracts alongside the lawyers.

Tracy Dryden

Meddle not in the affairs of dragons,
For you are crunchy, and good with mustard.

 

[Turkbear]

Hi,
As someone married to a securities lawyer, I can attest to the time and effort she puts into proofreading all official documents ( IPO forms, contracts, etc.)..There is really no room for even minor errors.

As a non-related example of the importance of a comma, try these 2 sentences:

Woman without her man is nothing.

Woman, without her, man is nothing.

Quite a powerful little character...





To Paraphrase:"The Help you get is proportional to the Help you give.."

 

[CajunCenturion]

That's great. Thanks anotherhiggins.

--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[Lunatic]

Maniac,

Building off of what other have said, from my experience working with Administrative Rules (the rules state agencies adopt to impliment actual legislation), 'founder's intent' is really only relevent when there is ambiguity.

As a possible example could be:

"Operators shall impliment reasonable measures to ensure water quality"

In this case there is nothing explicitly required. Simply that the operator take 'reasonable' steps to protect water quality (which incidently has almost NOTHING to do with drinking quality).

But what is 'reasonable'? This is a case where 'founder's intent' becomes important.

***

In the case cited there is no ambiguity. It is cut and dry and the process is spelled out. Returning the example I provided, the Roger's case is more like:

"Operators shall not build roads with 100' feet of rivers"

***

The first example describes the outcome required and requires interpretation on how to reach it. The second example describes the process required and doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room.

 

[strongm]

>start hiring grammarians to go over their contracts alongside the lawyers

Legal 'grammar' has always been somewhat ... erm ... different to normal grammar to try and avoid just this sort of thing.

 

[Lunatic]

I'm studying for the LSAT (but I want to work in shaping public policy, not a courtroom) right now and its amazing how many terms I'm used to mean something completely different. The precise meaning of each work in a legal context does not change very much, often only when new laws require it. For example, narcotics, in its purest sense, only refers to something that causes narcosis (sleep), but today I believe the definition for narcotic is an addictive drug on the FDA's do not distribute list.

From a previous life, an example is 'shall' which legally means must. I was in a meeting once between the people writing the rules and the people enforcing the rules where they spent an hour arguing over the word shall.

Shall, in your dicitionary means should (

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/shall

). The people clinging to this couldn't comprehend how it had a different meaning legally.

***

So using this to build on strongm's point, any English majors would need to relearn their grammar ;p

 

[tsdragon]

I'm not sure what strongm means by "legal grammar", but I don't think the meaning of a word technically falls under "grammar". I was referring specifically to things like punctuation, tense, etc. But then again, I may have misunderstood the definition of "grammar".

(And let's not get into the meanings of "grammer" that have to do with your family tree.)


Tracy Dryden

Meddle not in the affairs of dragons,
For you are crunchy, and good with mustard.

 

[Turkbear]

Hi,
I believe that the most common meaning of grammar is the 'structure' of a language, not the meaning of words..

As such,rules governing case agreement, tense, voice, etc as well as punctuation are part of the grammar of a language..

How that grammar is used is often called 'diction' - and, in some countries, is used to stereotype the 'social class' of the speaker ( Think Eliza Dolittle)

As to legal meanings, they have evolved in such a way as to attempt to eliminate 'loopholes' caused by 'ordinary' definitions of terms .







To Paraphrase:"The Help you get is proportional to the Help you give.."

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> From a previous life, an example is 'shall' which legally means must. I was in a meeting once between the people writing the rules and the people enforcing the rules where they spent an hour arguing over the word shall.

==> but I don't think the meaning of a word technically falls under "grammar".

Both of these statement are true, and the will/shall situation is a perfect example. The traditional rules of grammar state that 'shall' is correct in first person, and 'will' is correct in second and third person. Both are imperative statements.

--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[Lunatic]

I'm still struggling with this... how is the word choice, and the meaning of those words, not "grammar"? The words and their meanings are the foundation upon which the sentance is founded.

What is the selection of words for their meaning called then?

 

[Turkbear]

Hi,
Vocabulary ...





To Paraphrase:"The Help you get is proportional to the Help you give.."

 

[Lunatic]

Does vocabulary include why the word is chosen or just the defnition of the word? If so, then I guess what I'm looking for is the step that combines the vocabulary and grammar to for the sentance...

Words have meaning = vocabulary (1: a list or collection of words or of words and phrases usually alphabetically arranged and explained or defined

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/vocabulary

)

Designing the scentance = grammar (2b: a system of rules that defines the grammatical structure of a language

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/grammar

)

What do you call the combining of vocabulary and grammar? I've always thought of that as being part of grammar, but if the meaning of the word isn't part of grammar and the way the words aren't put together isn't part of vocabulary, what is the middle step that combines the 2 to form the sentance?

***

I guess that is what is throwing me... I see uncommonly used words or words used in a very precise and narrow sense more of a grammatical construct.

But if CC is correct then I'm missing a step. What is that middle process that combines the two?

 

[Turkbear]

Hi,
In many cases that would be a broader definition of your 'diction' - that is, your 'use of the language' which encompasses all those factors:

Vocabulary = Knowing which word to use.

Grammar = Knowing How to Use it in context (knowing the 'rules' of usage in a sentence, for example)

Diction = Combining the previous 2 correctly to transmit your point.

In olden days, this was also known as 'Rhetoric'..




To Paraphrase:"The Help you get is proportional to the Help you give.."

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> Does vocabulary include why the word is chosen or just the defnition of the word?
I don't think so. You cannot choose a word if it's not in your vocabulary, but why one word is chosen over another word is more a matter of semantics.

A grammar, especially formal grammars, are the rules that explain how the specific words of a langugage can be put together to build a well-formed sentence. In and of itself, grammar doesn't speak to the meaning.

The homework ate the dog.

There is nothing grammatically wrong with that sentence, although it has no semantic value. Punctuation is used to remove semantic ambiguity, or otherwise clarify intent.

--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein