If you need to express that two different arrangements apply in different circumstances, it may be that the most convenient way to express those different circumstances is by using paired sets of parentheses.
Here’s an example, which I’ve included in a draft article:
“Total Disability” means that due to sickness or accidental bodily injury, (1) the member is unable to perform substantially all of the duties of his occupation (applies only during the first 12 consecutive months of that disability) and (2) the member is able to perform none of the duties of his occupation and is able to perform duties of none of the other occupations for which he is reasonably qualified by education, training, or experience (applies thereafter), with disability being determined by a doctor in each case.
I’m open to improvements.
That seems overly awkward. Why not just say it without the parenthetical?
“Total Disability” means that due to sickness or accidental bodily injury, (1) the member is unable to perform substantially all of the duties of his occupation within the first 12 consecutive months of that disability and (2) after the first 12 consecutive months, the member is unable to perform the duties of his occupation and is unable to perform the duties of the other occupations for which he is reasonably qualified by education, training, or experience, with disability being determined by a doctor in each case.
d: The meaning conveyed by your clause (1) is different from that conveyed by mine, in that yours refers to performing duties “within the first 12 months.” But the employee didn’t have some set of duties that had to be performed no later than the end of that period. And without the parentheses, the closing modifier (“with disability being …”) is perhaps subject to syntactic ambiguity. Ken
Ah… the parentheses still seem awkward to me. Also, if Total Disability is determined by the doctor, I don’t like having it hang on the end, either, seems like it should be up-front. I like Paul’s revision, below.
I like it. Clear and less punctuation than if you skipped the parens.
Ken,
Something about the definition strikes me as awkward, and I’m having a hard time pinning it down. It may be this: The defined term “Total Disability” is a nominal phrase: that is, it is a noun (“Disability”) modified by an adjective (“Total”). So when I read the definition, I’m expecting to see another noun that acts as an anchor and as a starting place for the definition. It’s there, but it’s disguised as a verb phrase: “unable to perform.” It might be clearer to change the verb “unable” to the noun “inability.”
To take it a step further, are you really saying that a “Total Disability” is an “inability,” or are you saying that “Total Disability” is a “determination” (by a doctor)? If the latter is what you intend, then I’d suggest something like this:
“Total Disability” means the determination by a doctor made at any time after the sickness or accidental injury of a member that due to such sickness or injury, (1) during the consecutive 12-month period beginning on the date that the sickness began or the injury occurred (in this definition, the “first year”), such member was or will be unable to perform
substantially all duties of his occupation or (2) after the first year, such member was not able or will not be able to perform any of the duties of either (a) his occupation or (b) any other occupation for which he is
reasonably qualified by education, training, or experience.
(I may have missed your intent on whether (1) and (2) are “both” or “either/or”.)
Paul: I spotted that part-of-speech issue, and I’m ashamed to say I ignored it because the alternatives seemed too clumsy.
Normally when the parts of speech don’t match, “refers to” is your best option. I suppose here I could say “refers to the fact that”. But I really don’t like “the fact that”.
And yes, to have the parts of speech match I should use “inability”. But I’d have to say something like “is subject to an inability”, unless I do major surgery. And I think that might require repeating the “that due to” phrase, which I’d rather not do.
So I might just leave it as is. What do you think?
I think my use of parentheses eliminates any ambiguity regarding the meaning of “and”.
Ken
I find the parentheses a bit jarring–I have to think a second to realize that the word “applies” starting each parenthetical phrase is preceded by an elliptical “this subsection (1)” and “this subsection (2)”. Why not add these words, if you insist on using the parentheses?
Even with the parentheses, I’d do this:
“Total Disability” means the inability of a member, due to sickness or
accidental bodily injury, to perform either (1) substantially all of the duties of his occupation (applies only during
the first 12 consecutive months of that disability) or (2) any of the duties of his occupation or any other occupation for which he is
reasonably qualified by education, training, or experience (applies
thereafter); in either case, with disability being determined by a doctor.
Also, I don’t like the “doctor” issue being an afterthought at the end, but this is more of a substantive issue.
I can’t resist having a go at this:
“Total Disability” means, with respect to the sickness or bodily injury of the member, (1) during the first 12 consecutive months of such sickness or injury, that the member is unable to perform substantially all of the duties of his current occupation, and (2) at any time thereafter, that a doctor has determined such sickness or injury renders the member unable to perform the duties of his current occupation and all other occupations for which he is reasonably qualified [by education, training or experience].
Not sure you need that last part. There aren’t many other ways a person can become qualified for an occupation – and in any case, it’s hard to imagine anyone arguing about it.
Jay: Sorry for the delay in my responding. The biggest problem with your formulation is that it could be understood as suggesting that the disability has to apply for 12 consecutive months. Instead, it’s simply that one standard applies during the first 12 months, then the standard changes.
Also, the bit about diagnosis by a doctor applies to both standards. That’s something that I should make clearer in my version.
And fie upon use of such instead of that!
But I take your point about “by education, training, or experience”.
Ken
“Total
Disability” means that due to sickness or accidental bodily injury, the
member is unable to perform substantially all of the duties of his occupation during
the first 12 consecutive months of that disability. After the first 12 consecutive months of the
disability, “Total Disability” means that the member is able to perform none of
the duties of his occupation and is able to perform duties of none of the other
occupations for which he is reasonably qualified by education, training, or experience,
with disability being determined by a doctor in each case.
Kazu: My first comment in my response to Jay applies to your version too. Also, I’m not crazy about defining the term twice. And the doctor diagnosis applies to both standards; as I mentioned to Jay, I need to make that clearer in my version. Ken