leavened with whatever else seems called for

[mei]

Hi,

I am not sure about the meaning of the underlined clause. Please do me a favor.


I swear to tell what strikes me as the truth, at least as much of it as seems appropriate, leavened with whatever else seems called for?

Thanks in advance.

Mei

[RonBee]

Hi,

I am not sure about the meaning of the underlined clause. Please do me a favor.


I swear to tell what strikes me as the truth, at least as much of it as seems appropriate, leavened with whatever else seems called for?

Thanks in advance.

Mei

It seems to me that more context is needed. Could you include the preceding and following paragraphs?

[mei]

Hi,

I am not sure about the meaning of the underlined clause. Please do me a favor.


I swear to tell what strikes me as the truth, at least as much of it as seems appropriate, leavened with whatever else seems called for?

Thanks in advance.

Mei

It seems to me that more context is needed. Could you include the preceding and following paragraphs?

Hi, here comes more context:

The Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing But the Truth

There are many social scientists and evaluators today who think that the slogan that heads this section is impossibly naive. On the contrary, it is better than any alternative, good enough for the courts, and clear enough, in whole and in every part, for anyone to understand. This is because native speakers understand in context, not because they can reply to a demand for an a contextual definition of "truth." What other formula should the courts use when swearing in an expert witness, in order to avoid the alleged naïveté? Something along the lines of "I swear to tell what strikes me as the truth, at least as much of it as seems appropriate, leavened with whatever else seems called for"? That's exactly what the oath as now administered is designed to avoid.


Thanks.

Mei

[RonBee]

Thank you. The additional context is helpful. However, although I understand it better, explaining it will not be easy. That is because of the nature of the discussion.

The title of that piece (The Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing But the Truth) is the traditional oath taken by witnesses in a judicial proceeding. The "problem" is that different people have different ideas about what the truth is. (I don't really see it as a problem, but that is what the article is about.) Supposedly, that problem causes difficulties because it means that people will not know how to behave as witnesses. (Although the article specifically refers to expert witnesses, I am unsure of the relevance of that.)

Does that help?

8)