On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > On Fri, 13 Mar 2009, comex wrote: >> The special case of a simple 'X SHALL do Y by >> <mechanism> was established in CFJs 1765 and 1890 to imply the >> mechanism, but I'd argue that's just an archaic linguistic shortcut, >> not a necessary side-effect of the SHALL. > > Sorry, you're right; but the CFJ statement is indeed for cases where > it's "X SHALL do Y by mechanism Z"; so as long as we're assuming that the > archaic shortcut is functional, it's relevant. -G.
But I argue it's _just_ a linguistic shortcut: not some odd attribute of 'CAN-ness' attached to the obligation, but an expansion to apply within the rule's text before anything else is considered. 'SHALL by announcement' --> 'CAN by announcement, and SHALL' 'SHALL NOT by announcement' --> well, I guess this has never been tested. Is it 'CAN by announcement, but SHALL NOT' or just 'SHALL NOT use the announcement mechanism to ...'? Either way the answer is TRUE because one or both rules say CAN and neither say CANNOT.
