Comments on: More on Rhetorical Emphasis http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2006/07/13/more-on-rhetorical-emphasis/ Tue, 31 Jan 2012 01:23:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc By: Ken Adams http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2006/07/13/more-on-rhetorical-emphasis/comment-page-1/#comment-106 Ken Adams Wed, 16 Aug 2006 12:34:59 +0000 http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2006/07/13/more-on-rhetorical-emphasis/#comment-106 Patrick: I understand the logical distinction between "if" and "only if," but I don't think that has anything to do with "if and only if." I find it helpful to think in terms of examples of contract prose rather than abstractions: I don't believe that my using "only if" rather than "if and only if" in the fourth example in the original post affects its meaning. Ken Patrick: I understand the logical distinction between “if” and “only if,” but I don’t think that has anything to do with “if and only if.” I find it helpful to think in terms of examples of contract prose rather than abstractions: I don’t believe that my using “only if” rather than “if and only if” in the fourth example in the original post affects its meaning. Ken

]]> By: Patrick Whittle http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2006/07/13/more-on-rhetorical-emphasis/comment-page-1/#comment-105 Patrick Whittle Mon, 14 Aug 2006 20:22:44 +0000 http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2006/07/13/more-on-rhetorical-emphasis/#comment-105 I respectfully disagree with you about "if and only if". "If" refers to a sufficient condition; "only if" refers to a necessary one. A condition may be necessary without being sufficient and vice versa. Thus, using the two together is not redundant, and so not merely rhetorical. For example, a number greater than two is prime "only if" it is odd. But it is not true that a number greater than two is prime "if" it is odd. Conversely, a number greater than two is odd "if" it is prime. But it is not true that a number greater than two is odd "only if" it is prime. I respectfully disagree with you about “if and only if”. “If” refers to a sufficient condition; “only if” refers to a necessary one. A condition may be necessary without being sufficient and vice versa. Thus, using the two together is not redundant, and so not merely rhetorical.

For example, a number greater than two is prime “only if” it is odd. But it is not true that a number greater than two is prime “if” it is odd. Conversely, a number greater than two is odd “if” it is prime. But it is not true that a number greater than two is odd “only if” it is prime.

]]> By: Craig Tindall http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2006/07/13/more-on-rhetorical-emphasis/comment-page-1/#comment-46 Craig Tindall Sun, 16 Jul 2006 22:17:24 +0000 http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2006/07/13/more-on-rhetorical-emphasis/#comment-46 Ken: couldn't agree more about the unnecessary use (misuse) of rhetorical emphasis in contracts. As a former litigator whose practice is now much more transactional, I consistent battle commission of this sin. However, I am one who believes there are times--perhaps more pointed, there are certain parties--that one feels a client may benefit from the emphasis on terms, either as a point of negotiations or to dissuade future misadventure. And, one should also take caution not to lose the full benefit of some phrases that are actually a legal hendiadys, which is a word phrase of two nouns separated by a conjunction, instead of a noun and its qualifier and that expresses a single idea. A common example is “arbitrary and capricious”, which is truly one standard and not two. For those who still labor in the litigation trenches or feel the need mentioned above to express that you “really, really mean it,” I’d refer you to a short article I wrote a couple of years ago called “Rhetorical Style.” It’s been published a couple of times, so it will pop up in Westlaw and Lexis. Here's a quick link to one source: http://www.ncbar.com/Journal/journal_8,1.asp. Ken: couldn’t agree more about the unnecessary use (misuse) of rhetorical emphasis in contracts. As a former litigator whose practice is now much more transactional, I consistent battle commission of this sin. However, I am one who believes there are times–perhaps more pointed, there are certain parties–that one feels a client may benefit from the emphasis on terms, either as a point of negotiations or to dissuade future misadventure. And, one should also take caution not to lose the full benefit of some phrases that are actually a legal hendiadys, which is a word phrase of two nouns separated by a conjunction, instead of a noun and its qualifier and that expresses a single idea. A common example is “arbitrary and capricious”, which is truly one standard and not two. For those who still labor in the litigation trenches or feel the need mentioned above to express that you “really, really mean it,” I’d refer you to a short article I wrote a couple of years ago called “Rhetorical Style.” It’s been published a couple of times, so it will pop up in Westlaw and Lexis. Here’s a quick link to one source: http://www.ncbar.com/Journal/journal_8,1.asp.

]]>