Surely the parenthetical refers to the last item in the list. I mean, if it were another modifying clause (eg: I need a fruit, a vegetable, an omnibus or a piece of chocolate, which must be yellow), it would only refer to the last item in the list. Or in a sentence like "My name is Jeff, I wear a hat, sunglasses, a watch, and trousers (which are yellow), that would surely refer to the trousers, not his whole attire.
On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 at 20:39 VJ Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> From rule 2166, "Assets" >> >> "An asset is an entity defined as such by a (a) rule, (b) authorized >> regulation, (c) group of rules and/or authorized regulations (but if >> such regulations modify a preexisting asset class defined by a rule or >> another title of regulations, they must be authorized specifically to >> do so by their parent rule), or (d) contract (hereafter its backing >> document)" >> >> It is clear that a backing document is only a contract from the way >> the rule is written. This was clearly just added in a non-careful way, >> but textually, a contract is a backing document and nothing else is. >> Therefore, there's no recordkeepor because "The recordkeepor of a >> class of assets is the entity (if any) defined as such by, and bound >> by, its backing document.". A rule of lower power defines the >> Treasuror as the recordkeepor for shinies, but that must defer to this >> higher power rule. > > > I don't think that this is clear at all. There is no grammatical rule that > forces the referent of the parenthetical to be one element of the list > rather than the rest of the list, and the rest of the rule is, as you have > observed, largely nonsensical without it. > > -Alexis -- >From V.J. Rada
