TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
RE: For those who think punctuation matters: validation!
Subject:RE: For those who think punctuation matters: validation! From:"Pinkham, Jim" <Jim -dot- Pinkham -at- voith -dot- com> To:"Jane Credland" <circe -at- lmi -dot- net>, "TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com> Date:Tue, 15 Aug 2006 10:12:11 -0500
The additional comma effectively creates a non-restrictive clause. That
allows the relevant part of the sentence to read, from an interpretive
point of view, as if the clause set apart by commas were not there. Like
this: "shall continue in force for a period of five years from the date
it is made...unless and until terminated by one year prior notice in
writing by either party."
The comma does matter, but John's right that the sentence is written
poorly in the first place if it's susceptible to this kind of ambiguity
and misconstruction.
Hindsight, as they say....
-----Original Message-----
From: techwr-l-bounces+jim -dot- pinkham=voith -dot- com -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
[mailto:techwr-l-bounces+jim -dot- pinkham=voith -dot- com -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com] On
Behalf Of Jane Credland
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 9:58 AM
To: TECHWR-L
Subject: RE: For those who think punctuation matters: validation!
At 07:48 AM 8/15/2006, John Posada wrote:
>Actually, I don't think the comma matters one way or the other. The
>original form with the misplaced second comma:
>
>"shall continue in force for a period of five years from the date it is
>made, and thereafter for successive five-year terms, unless and until
>terminated by one year prior notice in writing by either party."
>
>How is this different?
>
>"shall continue in force for a period of five years from the date it is
>made, and thereafter for successive five-year terms unless and until
>terminated by one year prior notice in writing by either party."
The version with the comma gives them the right to cancel the contract
on one year's notice within the first five years. The version without
the comma gives them the right to cancel the contract with one year's
notice *after* the first five years of the agreement.
So, the comma costs the party of the first part their guaranteed minimum
five year period of the contract before cancellation takes effect.
Legalese is a nasty, twisty language. I've probably forgotten lots at
this point, but I'm pretty sure that's the way the judge interpreted
this one.
WebWorks ePublisher Pro for Word features support for every major Help
format plus PDF, HTML and more. Flexible, precise, and efficient content
delivery. Try it today! http://www.webworks.com/techwr-l
Easily create HTML or Microsoft Word content and convert to any popular
Help file format or printed documentation. Learn more at http://www.DocToHelp.com/TechwrlList
---
You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as Jim -dot- Pinkham -at- voith -dot- com -dot-
WebWorks ePublisher Pro for Word features support for every major Help
format plus PDF, HTML and more. Flexible, precise, and efficient content
delivery. Try it today! http://www.webworks.com/techwr-l
Easily create HTML or Microsoft Word content and convert to any popular Help file format or printed documentation. Learn more at http://www.DocToHelp.com/TechwrlList
---
You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- infoinfocus -dot- com -dot-
