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

[Grattan Endicott]

Grattan Endicott
grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk
[also gesta at tiscali.co.uk]
*************************
"Progress is not an accident but
 a necessity."
                      {Herbert Spencer}
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jerry Fusselman" <jfusselman at gmail.com>
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 10:17 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] But me no buts [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]


> 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?
>
+=+ Yes.  It indicates an exception to the basic position. +=+