I think the answer is to avoid ambiguous structures. -- Trigon
On Nov 7, 2017 7:09 PM, "VJ Rada" <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote: > I suppose as a counter point you could have a sentence that says "this > is an agreement between Jeff, Johnny, Jackson, Jolene, and Jacqueline > (hereafter 'Parties'). Obviously Jeff's a party. > > And I suppose it's like "A contract is an entity defined as such by > one of these things, hereafter its backing document". It does work, it > looks like I was just tricked mercilessly by embedded lists. Let that > be a lesson to you all. > > On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 1:02 PM, VJ Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 > > > > -- > From V.J. Rada >
