From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed May 17 18:41:07 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 17 May 2006 18:41:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FgXUy-0002iW-Sa for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 17 May 2006 18:40:21 -0700 Received: from web81309.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.125]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FgXUx-0002iO-H5 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 17 May 2006 18:40:20 -0700 Received: (qmail 35618 invoked by uid 60001); 18 May 2006 01:39:47 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=tCabLE8MbhTZVo4zmlAnKImX348fC0TsiCh8Ta6xUMcuuyQ4KwZZSaP4mDma/rec6wfCbH13Q1jS3muugzu1HvAP8oGULtHAN6HCWJp7M4vyTH5Xpkuljirx8tnYZSvNob6lH3uTOlehYcz0t5uKUL7xceI58o26QkfOTK2diHg= ; Message-ID: <20060518013947.35615.qmail@web81309.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [70.237.229.49] by web81309.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 17 May 2006 18:39:47 PDT Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 18:39:47 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all} To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-archive-position: 11594 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --- Maxim Katcharov wrote: > On 5/17/06, John E Clifford > wrote: > > > > The move from "the x that are p and the x > that > > are q" to "the x that are p and q" is a > normal > > error on the part of first month Logic > students. > > The correct distribution is to "the x that > are > > either p or q": not that everything in the > > combined heap has both proerties but that > each > > has one or the other. > > ki'enai for comparing me to a first-month Logic > student. I understand > the concept very well, but I misused a word. > When you made typos in > previous posts, did I hasten to offer these > sorts of comparisons? > Keeping this sort of stuff out of an argument > like this benefits > everyone. Sorry that you took it in a derogatory sensse; I just meant it is common and so not surprising. English (and I assume any language) has its tricky bits and this is one of them. > On 5/17/06, John E Clifford > wrote: > > Contracts are, alas, rather cases of one of > the > > sort of thing I am pointing out, namely that > you > > cannot actually cover all the cases by a > simple > > description (or a complex one for that > matter). > > Consider a contract between a customer and a > > dairy for the dairy to deliver two quarts of > > milk to the customer's home every Thursday. > One > > Thursday a tiger escaped from a circus and > was > > roamin in the area of the customer's home and > > attacking people. The dairy told its > deliveryman > > not to deliver the customer's milk that day. > The > > customer sued for breach of contract > (Thursday > > but no milk). The court ruled for the > defendant, > > saying that contract did not have to say > "except > > on tiger days" for this to be an exception; > tiger > > days just don't count as Thursdays for this > > contract. The ruling was affirmed on appeal. > > Here is as unambiguous a description as > possible > > and yet it too is relative to some interests, > > which interests may not be dealt with > beforehand. > > Despite the unrealistic use of "tiger days", This is from the official report of the case. > I'll reply on your terms. > The court is stating that the restriction > given, "all tuesdays", was > not the one intended. No it is not. That was the correct way to write the contract. It would have been unreasonable and misleading to have put in all the conditions that might apply. > It's saying that both > parties screwed up in > writing the contract. This is a result of the > ambiguity of "all". Clearly not, since "all" does not appear. Nor is "every" at all vague or ambiguous (or it would not have been in the contract -- you are right that lawyers do there best to avoid these problems, but they come up in unpredictable ways anyhow). > If > the word "ool" was defined as "every single > one. Yes, those too. NO > EXCEPTIONS", and it was used in a contract, how > do you think that this > hypothetical court would have ruled? The ruling given is from an actual court, an actual case (well, HLA Hart said it was anyhow; I don't have a citation). How a court would decide in a case involving the new "ool," I don't know. But were they consistent with this ruling they would decide the same. Tiger days are NOT exceptions; they just don't count. > Speakers > of a language with a > word like "ool" would be well versed in the > dangers of using it, and > would indeed be better contract writers - I'm > sure that you've heard > of clauses like > > "...on all tuesdays from [...] to [...]. The > milk company reserves the > right to not serve milk on days that are > unreasonable in the sole > judgement of the milk company." > > in real contracts, yes? That would have been a sensible thing to put in except that it is a open invitation to litigation of a messy sort (was the judgment that delivery was unreasonable on this day made in good faith and by rational and/or lawful standards, and so on). The point is that the actual contract was perfectly fine as it stood (and so the court ruled). It just is that tiger days are not among the possible referents of "every Thursday" (though possibly for some other wording, such as you suggest). To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.