Ed Murphy wrote: >The intent was for the first clause in (+b) to refer to the first clause >in (-b). Compare Rule 1871, which uses the following basic form:
The comparison is most instructive. I'd been meaning to bring it up, but it slipped my mind. > If X, then Z, except in the situation discussed in the next > sentence. If X and Y, then Z'. "except in the situation ..." resolves to "except if X and Y". There is a specific reference to the conditional clause of a particular sentence. Clear and unambiguous. >to Rule 2176, which uses this one: > > If X, then Z, except as noted below. > (some text unrelated to X) > If X and Y, then Z'. > (some more text unrelated to X) Two main differences. Firstly, the "except ..." clause doesn't actually state (any part of) the exception, but leaves the entire exception to be stated below. Hence what it needs "below" to refer to is not merely a situation, as in R1871, but an *entire exception provision*. Which there isn't. Secondly, "below" is ambiguous. Almost half of the rule is below. If you're looking just for situations, which is what R1871's formulation requires, there are seven situations below that are described as causing mark awards or penalties. There are further situations that are not so grammatically distinct. -zefram
