Ooh. Another example of victim chic.
Imagine! It took the lawyers and the CRTC 18-months to come to a conclusion. OK. I don't know if it's just me that sees this, but would it take you 18 months to figure out that the underlined portion below modifies "and thereafter for successive five year terms"?
The agreement “shall continue in force for a period of five years from the date it is made, and thereafter for successive five year terms unless and until terminated by one year prior notice in writing by either party.”But add a comma after "and thereafter for successive five year terms" and the underlined portion results in, "shall continue in force for a period of five years from the date it is made,...,unless or until terminated by one year prior notice... ." Which is exactly what Aliant. Inc. did.
The agreement “shall continue in force for a period of five years from the date it is made, and thereafter for successive five year terms, unless and until terminated by one year prior notice in writing by either party.”The 2nd comma cannot be ignored; It's contractual law and, moreover, contracts don't punctuate themselves; the lawyers aren't the victims here. This is not a case of prescriptivism versus descriptivism as Robertson would have us believe. It's a valid error. The CRTC was correct, and the author makes them out to be the oppressors. On the contrary, they're victims of victim chic.
Actually, I'd say it falls in under socio-linguistics.Originally Posted by rewboss
In the sense of contractual law, yes. By the by, two of my MBA students who practiced law in China tell me that 'what is actually recorded' is of great importance in the east. Again, we're talking about a specific type of language, the kind used in contractual law.Originally Posted by rewboss
By 'a strictly adhered-to standard', do you mean standard punctuation rules? And if so, does that mean you think the punctuation (the 2nd comma) is non-standard usage?Originally Posted by rewboss
The reason I ask. That's what's implied here,
Are you ... certain the CRTC based their conclusion on prescriptive grammar rules? You see, the article reads,Originally Posted by rewboss
“Based on the rules of punctuation,” the comma in question “allows for the termination of the [contract] at any time, without cause, upon one-year's written notice,” the regulator said.There's no mention of a prescribed rule. The fact of the matter is, there's nothing grammatically wrong with the 2nd comma; it simply changes the meaning of the sentence. Again, we're talking about contractual law.
I most definitely agree.Originally Posted by rewboss
I definitely disagree. All idiolects are not 'equal'. I've yet to come across the current fashion for "all things are equal." Could you expand on that?Originally Posted by rewboss
Maybe I misunderstood your meaning.
You've lost me.Originally Posted by rewboss
Happy New Year's!