I'm not actually convinced by the region example; I initially read that the other way, and on rereading think it's ambiguous. Still, the apple example seems sound, and I find that a good enough as an analogue. Good judgement!
-Aris On Sun, Apr 5, 2020 at 5:56 PM Rebecca via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > A zombie auction can be terminated "if the Auction has not ended and the > Auctioneer of that Auction cannot transfer any item included in a lot in > that Auction" (as says rule 2552). In this case, one lot could not be > transferred. The question is whether the auction can end if one lot cannot > be transferred, or only if all of them cannot be transferred. > > The word "any" can mean each. In most legal contexts it does mean each(see > SAS Institute v Iancu). But that only tends to be the case when it is used > with "a singular noun in affirmative contexts" (this is quoting SAS > Institute). In other contexts, any means "one or more selected items in a > group". The sentence at issue here involves a negative context, and in such > context, a legal dictate tends to apply when one or more of the items does > not satisfy a condition, rather than when all of them do not. Let me > provide an example sentence. "The supplier can embargo a certain region if > we cannot receive safety assurances from any country included in the > region". That sentence is basically a mirror of rule 2552, and it's clear > to all that one country failing to provide assurances is enough for the > whole region to be subject to embargo. > > Alexis offers a sentence similar to "I can't understand any of your > questions". In this case, any clearly means each, all questions are > incomprehensible to the speaker. That example sentence, though, is much > further away from the rule itself than mine, and mine disproves the rule > offered that "any" after a negated verb always means "each". Instead, I > think, it is purely contextual. But take this sentence "if any item can't > be transferred, the auction can be cancelled". That's just a simplified and > switched up version of the actual rule at issue, but I don't think anyone > can read that at first scan and think that _every_ item must be unable to > be transferred > > I have said before in CFJs that we resolve textual arguments not like > robots, but with the reading of reasonable English speakers in mind. I am > not pointed to any grammatical canon which clearly resolves this case. > Indeed, looking at grammatical explanations of the word "any" available to > me, two different meanings seemed to be distinguishable often only by > context. My first reading of the rule 2552 is that one inability to > transfer nixes the whole auction. Take this sentence "A worker CAN dispose > of a shipment of apples if any apple within it cannot be eaten". In that > case, just like this one, one rotten apple spoils the bunch, consistent > with, although not strictly required by, rules of grammar. > > On the basis of natural grammar, my first reading as a reasonable speaker, > and the context of one wrong thing being involved in a lot of multiple, > inextricable things (just like my regions or apples examples), I judge CFJ > 3826 FALSE > > -- > From R. Lee >
