[blml] But me no buts [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Jerry Fusselman]

On 8/28/07, Grattan Endicott <grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
> +=+ The opinion of the current drafting subcommittee is that
> 'but' introduces an exception to what has gone immediately
> before.  'But see' directs attention to the place in the laws
> where the exception is detailed. In specified circumstances
> what follows 'but' overrides what has gone just before. This
> is considered to be the dictionary meaning of 'but' and explicit,
> thus - for the majority of the subcommittee - in no need of
> further calarification.
>                                      ~ Grattan ~   +=+
> '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Does that apply even when "but see" is inside parentheses, thereby
rendered "less basic" as you said earlier?

A little more precision may help.  I was thinking of law Y of the form
"A implies B" and law X is "C implies D (but see law Y)"  Based on
what you just said, does that mean that law X is really "C and not A
implies D"?

You earlier wrote this:

>>>>+=+ Parenthesis expands, qualifies or explains. The basic law can
>>>>be read omitting the parenthetical inlay.  This is not new, it is
>>>>Kaplanesque.
>>>>                                               ~ G ~   +=+

If you omit the parenthetical inlay, it changes the meaning,
obviously.  Apparently, you mean that "the basic law X is C implies D"
but the real law covered by X is "C and not A implies D."  Do I have
it right?  If so, it sounds kind of funny to me, because the thing you
call the "basic law" is *not* the law, because it will mislead in the
cases where A is true.

Jerry Fusselman