Wordsmith.org
Posted By: nancyk Legal hedging - 09/03/02 01:41 PM
A news story about tobacco legislation opening the door to obesity lawsuits quoted a law school professor: "The legal theories are not inapplicable in the broadest sense of the word to fast food." My question is, is there a reason for using the double negative construction rather than saying the theories "are applicable"? My only guess is that it's a way of not quite committing to the positive statement. But is there really a difference? Is there some halfway state between applicable and not applicable (like being sort of pregnant)?

Posted By: Faldage Re: Legal hedging - 09/03/02 01:52 PM
not inapplicable

It does seem that usually, when this construction is used, it implies a certain unwillingness on the part of the user to commit to a definitive statement. In this case it may be that the professor didn't want to say that you could just apply the legal theories to the fast food industry without some shaping and fitting of the theories to meet the specific circumstances.

Posted By: TEd Remington Not inapplicable - 09/03/02 01:53 PM
My take on it:

If the professor says the precedents are applicable, he's positioning himself where judges sit. By saying "not inapplicable" he's only saying that he thinks that a judge MAY find the precendents to actually be applicable.


Posted By: wwh Re: Not inapplicable - 09/03/02 02:33 PM
It seems to me that such a double negative can be useful in many applications to mean
a small probability. I am; not without sin, but I'm not going to throw rocks and anybody.

Posted By: Capital Kiwi Re: Not inapplicable - 09/03/02 08:31 PM
I would argue that "not inapplicable" is exactly equivalent to "applicable" in any reasonable legal discussion. If the professor says that something is not inapplicable, he's more or less stating it's applicability as fact. It's a turn of phrase rather than a turn in meaning!

Posted By: Wordwind Re: Not inapplicable - 09/03/02 08:36 PM
I disagree with CapK. If the professor says something is applicable, then that's direct and something simply is applicable.

If the professor says something is not inapplicable, I agree with others above that the professor is hedging a big.

Now the professor could have said that something "is applicable, but." And that would have been a good way of hedging, too.

Posted By: Capital Kiwi Re: Not inapplicable - 09/03/02 08:43 PM
Who am I to disagree with a lady?

Oh, that's who I am. Good-oh. Sorry WW, I disagree.

Posted By: wofahulicodoc non-Aristotelian - 09/03/02 10:27 PM
I'll go one step further:

In some cases, there may be a middle ground between A and not-A. In that case, "not not-A" is quite distinct from "A."

For example, consider "hungry" or "not hungry" - there is a middle ground where you won't miss the food if there isn't any more, but you would eat it and probably enjoy it if there were. Often that middle ground is the difference between heavy and slender...

But I'll have to leave it to the assembled multitudes to decide whether this point is applicable to the Court of AWAD or not.



Posted By: nancyk Re: non-Aristotelian - 09/04/02 12:50 AM
there may be a middle ground between A and not-A

Agreed, wofa, there are degrees of hunger, but are there degrees of applicability in the same way? My initial reaction was the same as CapK's, that not inapplicable is the same as applicable in reasonable discussion, but I questioned it precisely because it was in the legal arena. I know how fond lawyers are of splitting semantic hairs. We may be making a distinction without a difference, but.

Posted By: Faldage Re: Aristotelian - 09/04/02 01:08 AM
In the case of mathematics it's quite simple. Non-negative does not equal positive; zero is neither positive nor negative and therefore non-negative includes zero but positive does not.

In the legal case precision is everything. Just ask Sparteye. Someone's life can hang on a distiction we poor mortals consider semantic nit-picking.

Posted By: Jackie Re: Not inapplicable - 09/04/02 01:59 AM
I agree with Wordwind. Just because something is NOT applicable, doesn't automatically mean that it IS applicable. It could be neutral. As wofa said, in the middle. This is getting away from the double negative, but the principle is the same: if I say I am not coming to England next month, it doesn't automatically follow that I AM coming some other time. There are other possibilities, just as there are with the not inapplicable idea. It is not inapplicable that I plan on coming to England next month; but it isn't necessarily applicable that I do plan on it, either.

Posted By: milum Re: Aristotelian - 09/04/02 02:41 AM
In the legal case precision is everything. Just ask Sparteye. Someone's life can hang on a distiction we poor mortals consider semantic nit-picking. ~ faldage

"The legal theories are not inapplicable in the broadest sense of the word to fast food." ~ a law school professor

If precision can be the determinate of life or death by the law, thank God that this law school professor is tucked away in law school and not practicing at the bench.

The professor's sentence has no hidden arcane legal reason for being vague and poorly constructed, the professor sentence is just that- vague and poorly constructed.

Follow the semantics...
"The legal theories...(theories, for goodness sake)
are not inapplicable...(academia hedgehoging)
in the broadest sense of the word...(this is bullshit)
to fast food...(very good professor, we all know what constitutes "fast foods".)

Today the lawyers around us, i.e. the government, have a empire built on words rather than justice, it's a bit of a shame that the self-professed "lovers of words", i.e. us, give deference to these jerks.

Posted By: Wordwind Re: Lawyers - 09/04/02 09:30 AM
Interesting point, milum.

So much power--so many jokes. If you can't beat 'em, laugh at 'em.

Now what exactly is a good lawyer? Depends upon how you define is. Will we ever forget that particularly oddly split hair?

Bench regards,
WordWobbling

Posted By: Faldage Re: Aristotelian - 09/04/02 09:35 AM
it's a bit of a shame that the self-professed "lovers of words", i.e. us, give deference to these jerks.

That's your problem, milum. You're a closet prescriptivist. Y'all's problem is you got no respect for the language. It's fine as long as it does what you want it to, but you can't take it on its own terms.

Posted By: Capital Kiwi Re: Aristotelian - 09/04/02 10:07 AM
Living with a language is like living with a husband or wife. For years your relationship will trot along quite predictably with just the right (and understandable) amount of variation, then out of nowhere, BAM! it up and slaps you in the face and pisses off with the rap artist down the block.

Life (and language) sucks!

Posted By: Jackie Re: Aristotelian - 09/04/02 11:35 AM
Life (and language) sucks!
Tell me about it. Let's go have a drink or two, shall we?

Posted By: Wordwind Re: Aristotelian - 09/04/02 11:42 AM
Add in three or four and you can count me in.

Posted By: FishonaBike oblivion party - 09/04/02 02:18 PM
Me, too.

language...pisses off with the rap artist down the block

[BOM]
[bom-BOM]
Alpha Delta Eta Kappa
I'm the son of a rapper an' I look pretty dapper
How does that grab ya, babeee?
Beta Epsilon Theta Lambda
'S all Greek to me, don' ya speak to me
Baaa! Yeah!
Gamma Zeta Iota Mu
I stew in the heat of an alphabet zoo
[BOM]
[bom-BOM]

think I'll keep the day-job.


Posted By: Capital Kiwi Re: oblivion party - 09/05/02 10:13 AM
think I'll keep the day-job.

A wise decision, shona, a wise decision ...

Posted By: slithy toves Re: oblivion party - 09/06/02 01:46 AM
http://www.uky.edu/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/~scaife/terms?file=1ahrd.html&isindex=Litotes

A great word: litotes. As usual Orwell's advice is well worth considering.

Posted By: FishonaBike litotes - 09/06/02 08:54 AM
Excellent and appropriate ref, slithy.

I especially like the example of litotes as ironic understatement:
We saw him throw the buckets of paint at his canvas in disgust, and the result did not perfectly represent his subject, Mrs. Jittery.



A great word: litotes
Hmmm. Useful, certainly, but sounds a little too much like a vaguely embarrassing condition for my liking.


Posted By: Jackie Re: litotes - 09/06/02 01:15 PM
Yes indeed, lovely slithy--thank you.

sounds a little too much like a vaguely embarrassing condition for my liking.
I see what you mean, Shona! I can just see a parent cringing when a well-meaning child asks a neighbor, "How's your litotes?" That could be not a little uncomfortable.

Posted By: slithy toves Re: litotes - 09/06/02 01:40 PM
I dunno...as words go, I'd say it's not bad.

Posted By: Faldage Re: litotes - 09/06/02 02:05 PM
not a little uncomfortable

Is that not unlike "a lot uncomfortable"?

Posted By: Jackie Re: litotes - 09/07/02 03:59 PM
not a little uncomfortable

Is that not unlike "a lot uncomfortable"?

Yep--I was just doing a bit of litoteasing!

Posted By: inselpeter Re: Not inapplicable - 09/08/02 03:37 AM
<<..if the professor says that something *is not inapplicable..>>

All depends what the meaning of "is" is, huh?

I'd say the phrase means, is applicable but with only a slight hedge and a big insinuation. When he doubles the negative it means it's the precendent is applicable, but the way he puts it make it, he wants to express some doubt -- but he's doing that tongue-halfway-in-cheek. He means it's applicable and he's so damn smart to know it, too!

Posted By: musick Inapplicable without context - 09/08/02 04:17 PM
...he's more or less stating it's applicability as fact. It's a turn of phrase rather than a turn in meaning...

Aside from its meaning (and the fact I wasn't there) the words immediately struck me as being a conversational contradiction to someone insisting that whatever it was was innapplicable.

[I'll insert Monty Python's arguement sketch link here when it becomes *applicable]

Posted By: AnnaStrophic Re: fish wrapping - 09/08/02 07:14 PM

Alpha Delta Eta Kappa
I'm the son of a rapper an' I look pretty dapper
How does that grab ya, babeee?
Beta Epsilon Theta Lambda
'S all Greek to me, don' ya speak to me
Baaa! Yeah!
Gamma Zeta Iota Mu
I stew in the heat of an alphabet zoo


Not bad for a honky*, but the beat should really be on the 2 and 4.


(*cross-threading there)

Posted By: Faldage Bringing it back for Sparteye's perusal - 10/04/02 05:17 PM
No other comments at this time.

© Wordsmith.org