Comments on: How to Introduce a Set of Autonomous Definitions http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2008/04/29/how-to-introduce-a-set-of-autonomous-definitions/ Tue, 16 Mar 2010 21:26:31 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Ken Adams http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2008/04/29/how-to-introduce-a-set-of-autonomous-definitions/comment-page-1/#comment-51464 Ken Adams Thu, 01 May 2008 18:28:39 +0000 http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2008/04/29/how-to-introduce-a-set-of-autonomous-definitions/#comment-51464 David: Those are enlarging and limiting definitions, but they're still definitions. Ken David: Those are enlarging and limiting definitions, but they’re still definitions. Ken

]]> By: David Scrimshaw http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2008/04/29/how-to-introduce-a-set-of-autonomous-definitions/comment-page-1/#comment-51463 David Scrimshaw Thu, 01 May 2008 18:22:40 +0000 http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2008/04/29/how-to-introduce-a-set-of-autonomous-definitions/#comment-51463 I was suggesting that a phrase like "the following definitions apply" isn't exactly appropriate for non-exclusive definitions like: “candy” does not include chocolate, sugar or honey sold for cooking purposes “coal” includes briquettes and charcoal and similar items specifically prepared and packaged for barbecue installations For these examples, the interpreter still has to rely on external definitions of "candy" and "coal". I was suggesting that a phrase like “the following definitions apply” isn’t exactly appropriate for non-exclusive definitions like:

“candy” does not include chocolate, sugar or honey sold for cooking purposes

“coal” includes briquettes and charcoal and similar items specifically prepared and packaged for barbecue installations

For these examples, the interpreter still has to rely on external definitions of “candy” and “coal”.

]]> By: Ken Adams http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2008/04/29/how-to-introduce-a-set-of-autonomous-definitions/comment-page-1/#comment-51444 Ken Adams Thu, 01 May 2008 10:30:08 +0000 http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2008/04/29/how-to-introduce-a-set-of-autonomous-definitions/#comment-51444 Mike: The first of the alternatives you mention doesn't say anything about the definitions. And the second is like the <em>respective meanings</em> formula I mention in my post. David: I'm not sure I follow you. Iain: Hey, you see all sorts of weird stuff—that doesn't mean you should do it too! That said, I'm not about to burst a blood vessel over a missing colon. Ken Mike: The first of the alternatives you mention doesn’t say anything about the definitions. And the second is like the respective meanings formula I mention in my post.

David: I’m not sure I follow you.

Iain: Hey, you see all sorts of weird stuff—that doesn’t mean you should do it too! That said, I’m not about to burst a blood vessel over a missing colon.

Ken

]]> By: Iain http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2008/04/29/how-to-introduce-a-set-of-autonomous-definitions/comment-page-1/#comment-51443 Iain Thu, 01 May 2008 10:21:42 +0000 http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2008/04/29/how-to-introduce-a-set-of-autonomous-definitions/#comment-51443 I also see no colon at all in some agreements. For example: “The following definitions apply in this Agreement. “A” means X. “B” means Y.” I also see no colon at all in some agreements. For example:

“The following definitions apply in this Agreement.
“A” means X.
“B” means Y.”

]]> By: David Scrimshaw http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2008/04/29/how-to-introduce-a-set-of-autonomous-definitions/comment-page-1/#comment-51364 David Scrimshaw Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:30:15 +0000 http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2008/04/29/how-to-introduce-a-set-of-autonomous-definitions/#comment-51364 Using just "In this agreeement:" may work better if along with the "X means Y" formulation, there are also "X includes W, Y and Z" definitions. Using just “In this agreeement:” may work better if along with the “X means Y” formulation, there are also “X includes W, Y and Z” definitions.

]]> By: mike http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2008/04/29/how-to-introduce-a-set-of-autonomous-definitions/comment-page-1/#comment-51356 mike Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:26:29 +0000 http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2008/04/29/how-to-introduce-a-set-of-autonomous-definitions/#comment-51356 I've used no lead-in when length is important. I've also used the lead-ins suggested above. I have seen the following variations: "This agreement uses the following defined terms:" and "In this agreement, the following terms have the associated meaning:" I’ve used no lead-in when length is important. I’ve also used the lead-ins suggested above. I have seen the following variations:

“This agreement uses the following defined terms:”
and
“In this agreement, the following terms have the associated meaning:”

]]> By: Ken Adams http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2008/04/29/how-to-introduce-a-set-of-autonomous-definitions/comment-page-1/#comment-51349 Ken Adams Wed, 30 Apr 2008 11:11:33 +0000 http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2008/04/29/how-to-introduce-a-set-of-autonomous-definitions/#comment-51349 Iain: I've just reminded myself that it isn't arbitrary. For example, The New York Public Library Writer's Guide to Style and Usage 262 (1994) says "A colon is always correct after a complete sentence that introduces a list. ... If the introduction is not a complete sentence, the colon should not be used—a dash or no punctuation at all is preferred." I know that other, more authoritative and more current guides address this issue, but that's the one that I have at hand. The fourteenth edition of The Chicago Manual of Style says effectively the same thing, but I couldn't find the issue addressed in the fifteenth edition. Ken Iain: I’ve just reminded myself that it isn’t arbitrary. For example, The New York Public Library Writer’s Guide to Style and Usage 262 (1994) says “A colon is always correct after a complete sentence that introduces a list. … If the introduction is not a complete sentence, the colon should not be used—a dash or no punctuation at all is preferred.” I know that other, more authoritative and more current guides address this issue, but that’s the one that I have at hand. The fourteenth edition of The Chicago Manual of Style says effectively the same thing, but I couldn’t find the issue addressed in the fifteenth edition. Ken

]]> By: Iain http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2008/04/29/how-to-introduce-a-set-of-autonomous-definitions/comment-page-1/#comment-51345 Iain Wed, 30 Apr 2008 10:34:51 +0000 http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2008/04/29/how-to-introduce-a-set-of-autonomous-definitions/#comment-51345 Are the introductory words are worth including? Not including an introduction (e.g. "In this agreement:") may imply that the definitions apply to one or more of: * something other than the agreement; * a part, or subset, of the agreement; and * other documents. Ken: I agree that the enumeration of elements is unnecessary, but is it arbitrary to require a clause to have a verb for the purposes of determining whether (or not) colons are allowed? In other words, is: "In this Agreement: "A" means X; and "B" means Y." preferable to "The following definitions apply in this Agreement: "A" means X. "B" means Y." Are the introductory words are worth including? Not including an introduction (e.g. “In this agreement:”) may imply that the definitions apply to one or more of:
* something other than the agreement;
* a part, or subset, of the agreement; and
* other documents.

Ken: I agree that the enumeration of elements is unnecessary, but is it arbitrary to require a clause to have a verb for the purposes of determining whether (or not) colons are allowed? In other words, is:

“In this Agreement:
“A” means X; and
“B” means Y.”

preferable to

“The following definitions apply in this Agreement:
“A” means X.
“B” means Y.”

]]> By: Ken Adams http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2008/04/29/how-to-introduce-a-set-of-autonomous-definitions/comment-page-1/#comment-51288 Ken Adams Tue, 29 Apr 2008 19:55:03 +0000 http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2008/04/29/how-to-introduce-a-set-of-autonomous-definitions/#comment-51288 Eric: I've decided that I'm less lean-and-mean than I had thought! In recent days I've found myself suggesting that even though one could do without the lead-in and the concluding clause, they serve a modest narrative function. I guess I'd say the same for introducing a set of autonomous definitions. And I think it would look odd having the section heading on its own, without any text on the same line and the first autonomous definition underneath. But let me sleep on it ... Cristina: Your suggestion is fine, but I'm not a fan of using a colon after something that's less than a full clause. What you suggested isn't a full clause, in that it doesn't have a verb. And while I'm at it, I don't enumerate the elements in a set of autonomous definitions: they're in alphabetical order, and that's sufficient. Eric: I’ve decided that I’m less lean-and-mean than I had thought! In recent days I’ve found myself suggesting that even though one could do without the lead-in and the concluding clause, they serve a modest narrative function. I guess I’d say the same for introducing a set of autonomous definitions. And I think it would look odd having the section heading on its own, without any text on the same line and the first autonomous definition underneath. But let me sleep on it …

Cristina: Your suggestion is fine, but I’m not a fan of using a colon after something that’s less than a full clause. What you suggested isn’t a full clause, in that it doesn’t have a verb. And while I’m at it, I don’t enumerate the elements in a set of autonomous definitions: they’re in alphabetical order, and that’s sufficient.

]]> By: Eric Goldman http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2008/04/29/how-to-introduce-a-set-of-autonomous-definitions/comment-page-1/#comment-51282 Eric Goldman Tue, 29 Apr 2008 19:12:21 +0000 http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2008/04/29/how-to-introduce-a-set-of-autonomous-definitions/#comment-51282 Isn't the entire introduction superfluous? If you say in each definition "X means...", isn't that adequate clarification? Eric. Isn’t the entire introduction superfluous? If you say in each definition “X means…”, isn’t that adequate clarification? Eric.

]]>