 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / November 2006Term, period, deadline?
For some time already I'm trying to identify the word in English that would correctly express the idea of the "*period of a contract". Imagine such a clause of a contract: "The X of the contract is 2 years". I need ONE NOUN instead of "X" that would correctly express the following idea: "The contract will be deemed as terminated automatically in 2 years. Its *period is 2 years. If the parties do not extend the *period, the contract is deemed as terminated in 2 years after the signature." In numerous English contracts the wording somehow circumvents the "problem" without using the noun. For instance, it is stipulated that "the contract shall end in 2 years" etc. But what would the noun be? "Period", "deadline", "term" - all seem wrong here. Same with adjectives. If there is no *period of the contract, what would be the ONE ADJECTIVE to describe the contract? I've seen the phrase "OPEN-ENDED contract". Is it correct/native/grammatical? What about the antonym of the adjective? "A contract of limited period"? Very awkward, possibly ungrammatical. What about ONE ADJECTIVE? On 12 Nov 2006, Fiance wrote > For some time already I'm trying to identify the word in English > that would correctly express the idea of the "*period of a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > "The X of the contract is 2 years". -snip- > But what would the noun be? "Period", "deadline", "term" - all > seem wrong here. Why does "term" seem wrong to you? It's the one I'd automatically expect to see.  SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van >On 12 Nov 2006, Fiance wrote > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >It's the one I'd automatically expect to see. Agreed, although "duration" is also used quite a lot for the period of time during which a contract is valid (4:1 Richoux ratio for UK sites). SignatureMillicent Tendency (TEFKATHE) > For some time already I'm trying to identify the word in English that > would correctly express the idea of the "*period of a contract". > > Imagine such a clause of a contract: > > "The X of the contract is 2 years". > I need ONE NOUN instead of "X" that would correctly express the > following idea: > > "The contract will be deemed as terminated automatically in 2 years. > Its *period is 2 years. If the parties do not extend the *period, the > contract is deemed as terminated in 2 years after the signature." I think I can get you there if you're willing to accept a short phrase and a bit of rewriting. Try something like this: "The period of performance of this contract will expire two years after the effective date unless the parties agree in writing, before the end of the period of performance, to extend the period of performance." I use "period of performance" (and avoid "terminate" and "termination") because the legal consequences of a contract can outlast the period of performance. Let's say a company hires an employee for two years, using a contract of empoloyment that specifically states that the employee will work for the company for two years and no longer. Two years later, the employment relationship ends. But the contract may also specify that the employee will not go to work for any other company in the same line of business for a year after his employment ends. The effect of the contract extends beyond the period of performance. > In numerous English contracts the wording somehow circumvents the > "problem" without using the noun. And there's a good reason for that. > For instance, it is stipulated that > "the contract shall end in 2 years" etc. Yuk. Contracts don't "end." Performance ends. Contracts can live on for years. Suppose the contract is for construction of a building. It may specify a period of one year for the construction, but it may also specify a warranty of twenty years on some parts of the building. When does the contract "end"? (You may know, but I don't.) > But what would the noun be? "Period", "deadline", "term" - all seem > wrong here. They are. You're coming at this from the wrong angle. > Same with adjectives. If there is no *period of the contract, what > would be the ONE ADJECTIVE to describe the contract? I've seen the > phrase "OPEN-ENDED contract". Is it correct/native/grammatical? The law will not allow a contract to last forever (although there were 999-year leases in medieval times; most were terminated long ago by statute or judicial decision). But a contract can be effectively open-ended. I don't recognize the term as legal jargon, but I think the meaning is obvious. I wouldn't use it in writing a contract, however. Contracts should be as precise as possible. Specific dates are best: "The period of performance of this contract will commence on the effective date and expire on 31 December 2008." "Effective date" should be separately specified elsewhere in the contract. > What about the antonym of the adjective? "A contract of limited > period"? Very awkward, possibly ungrammatical. What about ONE ADJECTIVE? There's more to life than boiling things down to ONE WORD. Omit needless words -- yes, of course. But don't eliminate the ones you need. I hasten to add, since it's no secret that I am a lawyer, that I am not offering legal advice here. I'm commenting generally on how the American English language is used in the drafting of contracts. I wouldn't want anyone to mistake a few casual remarks for a well-considered legal opinion. SignatureBob Lieblich Well, consider On 12 Nov 2006, Robert Lieblich wrote > The law will not allow a contract to last forever (although > there were 999-year leases in medieval times; most were > terminated long ago by statute or judicial decision). 999-year leases were still being made in England in the 19th century -- Burlington House was leased from the Crown this way in the 1850s or 1860s. I don't know if they were terminated by the Property Acts of the 1920s, but I didn't think they were. SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van >On 12 Nov 2006, Robert Lieblich wrote > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >I don't know if they were terminated by the Property Acts of the >1920s, but I didn't think they were. I'm pretty sure that my parent's leasehold property, built in the 1930s, is on a 999 year lease (with, of course, something over 900 years remaining). SignatureOn-line canal route planner: http://www.canalplan.org.uk (Waterways World site of the month, April 2001) My Reply-To address *is* valid, though likely to die soon >> On 12 Nov 2006, Robert Lieblich wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > is on a 999 year lease (with, of course, something over 900 years > remaining). 999-year leases are alive and well and living in England. I have created several this year. Their main use is in the selling of flats (for technical reasons the enforcement of obligations is easier in leases, a fact which makes freehold flats unsatisfactory in practice), but they are also used in the sale of other property, sometimes for tax reasons. Regards Jonathan >>> On 12 Nov 2006, Robert Lieblich wrote >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >fact which makes freehold flats unsatisfactory in practice), but they >are also used in the sale of other property, sometimes for tax reasons. I own my house here in Northern Ireland, but the land on which it stands is on 999-year lease which requires the payment of a nominal annual Ground Rent (GBP50). I was told by someone that the point of the period of 999 years is that if someone occupies property for 1000 years it becomes theirs outright (under some very ancient law). SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) > I own my house here in Northern Ireland, but the land on which it > stands is on 999-year lease which requires the payment of a nominal [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that if someone occupies property for 1000 years it becomes theirs > outright (under some very ancient law). That's not correct, Peter - at least not in England, and I don't think NI law is different in this respect. Leases can be validly created for any length of time, provided that it is fixed. Leases of 2000 or even 3000 years were common in relatively recent times (i.e. after the reforms of 1925) for mortgage purposes. These terms were fictional in practice, but nevertheless valid. Regards Jonathan >> I own my house here in Northern Ireland, but the land on which it >> stands is on 999-year lease which requires the payment of a nominal [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >reforms of 1925) for mortgage purposes. These terms were fictional in >practice, but nevertheless valid. It seems then that the "explanation" for 999 years might well be analogous to a folk etymology. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) > I was told by someone that the point of the period of 999 years is > that if someone occupies property for 1000 years it becomes theirs > outright (under some very ancient law). Does "occupy" include being buried on the property? SignaturePeter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses. The optusnet address could disappear at any time. > > I was told by someone that the point of the period of 999 years is > > that if someone occupies property for 1000 years it becomes theirs > > outright (under some very ancient law). > Does "occupy" include being buried on the property? Or, corollariously, can a ghost own property? > Peter Moylan <peter@ozebelgDieSpammers.org> said: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Or, corollariously, can a ghost own property? Spooks (MW11 say they're ghosts as well as spies) can own property, so ghosts obviously do. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan. Unmunged email: /at/easypeasy.com "Impatience is the mother of misery." 2006-11-12 <ae0fl216ldnuk2rt1h5l8nihcvsft8s0s0@4ax.com>, >>>> On 12 Nov 2006, Robert Lieblich wrote >>>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > that if someone occupies property for 1000 years it becomes theirs > outright (under some very ancient law). Has there even been any system of (civil, not religious) law in continuous operation anywhere for the last 1000 years? Random832 wrote, in <slrnelhkhj.919.random@rlaptop.random.yi.org> on 13 Nov 2006 20:14:45 GMT: > Has there even been any system of (civil, not religious) law in > continuous operation anywhere for the last 1000 years? English Common Law. From Wikipedia: common law n. the traditional unwritten law of England, based on custom and usage, which began to develop over a thousand years before the founding of the United States. The best of the pre-Saxon compendiums of the common law was reportedly written by a woman, Queen Martia, wife of a king of a small English kingdom. Together with a book on the "law of the monarchy" by a Duke of Cornwall, Queen Martia's work was translated into the emerging English language by King Alfred (849-899 A.D.). When William the Conqueror invaded England in 1066, he combined the best of this Anglo-Saxon law with Norman law, which resulted in the English common law, much of which was by custom and precedent rather than by written code. By the 14th century legal decisions and commentaries on the common law began providing precedents for the courts and lawyers to follow. It did not include the so-called law of equity (chancery), which came from the royal power to order or prohibit specific acts. The common law became the basic law of most states due to the Commentaries on the Laws of England, completed by Sir William Blackstone in 1769, which became every American lawyer's bible. Today almost all common law has been enacted into statutes with modern variations by all the states except Louisiana, which is still influenced by the Napoleonic Code. In some states the principles of Common Law are so basic they are applied without reference to statute. SignatureNick Spalding > I own my house here in Northern Ireland, but the land on which it > stands is on 999-year lease which requires the payment of a nominal > annual Ground Rent (GBP50). Who owns the land, technically? SignatureSML >> I own my house here in Northern Ireland, but the land on which it >> stands is on 999-year lease which requires the payment of a nominal >> annual Ground Rent (GBP50). > >Who owns the land, technically? When I first moved into the house the land was leased from someone named Hugh Walker who was the owner in fee-simple (freehold). As that was 33 years ago it is possible that the land now belongs to someone else (by inheritance or sale). The land was originally registered in 1897. The oldest document I have in the Title Deeds is a Land Certificate dated 1902. A later addendum to this certificate shows that four parts of the land were transferred to new owners, one of whom was Hugh Walker in 1968. The "considerations" (i.e. payments) for the transfers of ownership were GBP3000, GBP450, and the other two were for "natural love and affection". The ground rent is collected by a firm of estate agents. I receive an invoice every six months and pay by cheque made out to the firm rather than to the owner, which is why I don't know the name of the owner. The days on which the rent is due are known as Gale Days: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Gale+day&r=66 Gale day Gale \Gale\, n. [Cf. Gabel.] The payment of a rent or annuity. [Eng.] --Mozley & W. Gale day, the day on which rent or interest is due. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=gabel gabel \Ga"bel\, n. [F. gabelle, LL. gabella, gabulum, gablum; of uncertain origin. Cf.Gavel tribute.] (O. Eng. Law) A rent, service, tribute, custom, tax, impost, or duty; an excise. --Burrill. He enables St. Peter to pay his gabel by the ministry of a fish. --Jer. Taylor. Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc. I think that technically the ultimate owner is the Crown, as in the rest of the UK. This is of no practical consequence. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >> I own my house here in Northern Ireland, but the land on which it >> stands is on 999-year lease which requires the payment of a nominal >> annual Ground Rent (GBP50). > > Who owns the land, technically? There are many houses in Washington state that are built on Indian Reservation grounds and owned by non-Indians. The house owners possess the lots on a 99-year lease. I have no idea whether there are any rent payments to be paid, but I don't think so. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/ Jonathan Morton <jonathan@jonathanmortonbutignorethisbit.co.uk> had it: > >> On 12 Nov 2006, Robert Lieblich wrote > >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > fact which makes freehold flats unsatisfactory in practice), but they > are also used in the sale of other property, sometimes for tax reasons. Is there any point to creating such leases now that leaseholders have the right to buy their freehold? SignatureDavid ===== > Jonathan Morton <jonathan@jonathanmortonbutignorethisbit.co.uk> had > it: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Is there any point to creating such leases now that leaseholders have > the right to buy their freehold? Yes, but I would have to kill you if I told you what the point was. Regards Jonathan >999-year leases are alive and well and living in England. I have created >several this year. Their main use is in the selling of flats (for >technical reasons the enforcement of obligations is easier in leases, a >fact which makes freehold flats unsatisfactory in practice), but they >are also used in the sale of other property, sometimes for tax reasons. Here we would do that with a condominium. I own the interior surface of all the interior walls of my unit, plus a 0.9756% interest in the trust which owns everything else, subject to a master deed and the trust's declaration and bylaws. I have no idea what happens when the trust expires, as it inevitably must. (In our case it's something like the death of the last living immediate child of the trust grantor; I'd have to look up in the documents to make absolutely certain.) -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness > Here we would do that with a condominium. I own the interior surface > of all the interior walls of my unit, plus a 0.9756% interest in the > trust which owns everything else, [...] Only the interior surface? Does that extra 0.9756% suffice to let you hammer a picture hook into a wall? SignaturePeter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses. The optusnet address could disappear at any time. > > Here we would do that with a condominium. I own the interior surface > > of all the interior walls of my unit, plus a 0.9756% interest in the > > trust which owns everything else, [...] > Only the interior surface? Does that extra 0.9756% suffice to let you > hammer a picture hook into a wall? Incidental question: Southern California used to have a restaurant shaped like a hat and a hardware store shaped like a pumpkin, so is a condominium a building shaped like a condom? [...] > Incidental question: Southern California used to have a > restaurant shaped like a hat and a hardware store shaped > like a pumpkin, so is a condominium a building shaped like a > condom? After posting that remark, I Googled and found 178,000 hits containing both of the words "condom" and "condominium". Now, having hit on the initialism "NNUTS", I wonder how many times it has been used before. Note that it can be construed to be a pronunciation of ejaculatory "nuts" with the initial consonant prolonged to show exasperation. That could be a reaction to finding that one's invention had been previously invented. (No double entendre intended with the reference to ejaculatory nuts.) > Peter Moylan <peter@ozebelgDieSpammers.org> said: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > like a pumpkin, so is a condominium a building shaped like a > condom? I thought they were elastic and took the shape of whatever it is they find themselves embracing, just the way tofu absorbs the flavor of whatever it's cooked with. I've eaten tofu recently, but I haven't used a condom for decades, so I might no be remembering correctly. What say you, Bob? SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan. Unmunged email: /at/easypeasy.com "Impatience is the mother of misery." > > Peter Moylan <peter@ozebelgDieSpammers.org> said: > >> > Here we would do that with a condominium. I own the interior > >> > surface > >> > of all the interior walls of my unit, plus a 0.9756% > >> > interest in the trust which owns everything else, [...] > >> Only the interior surface? Does that extra 0.9756% suffice to > >> let you hammer a picture hook into a wall? > > Incidental question: Southern California used to have a > > restaurant shaped like a hat and a hardware store shaped > > like a pumpkin, so is a condominium a building shaped like a > > condom? > I thought they were elastic and took the shape of whatever it is they > find themselves embracing, just the way tofu absorbs the flavor of > whatever it's cooked with. I've eaten tofu recently, but I haven't > used a condom for decades, so I might no be remembering correctly. > What say you, Bob? I've never knowingly eaten tofu, but are you taking into account that there are both male and female condoms? From _Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate_: condom [...] 2 : a device that is designed to be inserted into the vagina before coitus and that resembles in form and function the condom used by males So a diaphragm is a condom? >I've never knowingly eaten tofu, but are you taking into >account that there are both male and female condoms? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >So a diaphragm is a condom? No. Because a diaphragm does not resemble in form the condom used by males. SignatureLinz Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford My accent may vary > >From _Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate_: > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > No. Because a diaphragm does not resemble in form the condom used by > males. Nor function, neither. Overall purpose of birth control, yeah, but not in the way it achieves that. Illustrations and information: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/birth-control-pregnancy/birth-control/f emale-condom.htm http://www.plannedparenthood.org/birth-control-pregnancy/birth-control/d iaphragms-caps-and-shields.htm SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux > > >From _Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate_: > > > condom > > > [...] > > > 2 : a device that is designed to be inserted > > > into the vagina before coitus and that > > > resembles in form and function the condom used > > > by males > > >So a diaphragm is a condom? > > No. Because a diaphragm does not resemble in form the > > condom used by males. > Nor function, neither. Overall purpose of birth control, > yeah, but not in the way it achieves that. Thank you both. I don't know at all what a diaphragm looks like, despite having had intimate experience with one many times during our impregnable* years. > Illustrations and information: > http://www.plannedparenthood.org/birth-control-pregnancy/birth-control/female-co ndom.htm > http://www.plannedparenthood.org/birth-control-pregnancy/birth-control/diaphragm s-caps-and-shields.htm Okay, now I know. Thanks again. I wonder, though, how reliable the statistics are that they give. The number of pregnancies (five out of 100) they show with perfect use of the condom seems unbelievable. Makes me wonder how they really knew the condom was being used perfectly in each of the 100 uses that were purportedly perfect. Or how they define "perfect". They say they have no figure for perfect use of the diaphragm. I would expect it to be near zero. *ObAUE: I see "impregnable" has meanings which would make it a possible candidate for addition to Mark Israel's list of contronyms. It can mean either "unassailable" or "able to be impregnated". _Merriam-Webster's Collegiate_ has only the second meaning, but the _New Shorter Oxford_ has both. It's almost as if "vulnerable" and "invulnerable" were synonymous. [...] > *ObAUE: I see "impregnable" has meanings which would make > it a possible candidate for addition to Mark Israel's list > of contronyms. Okay, I should have looked before I commented. "Impregnable" *is* in Mark's list of contronyms. However, he says impregnable = invulnerable, [disputed] impregnatable The _New Shorter Oxford_ doesn't say it's disputed. It simply says unequivocally "Able to be impregnated. >> >From _Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate_: >> > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Nor function, neither. Shouldn't that be "Nor function, either", Donna? Overall purpose of birth control, yeah, but not >in the way it achieves that. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >http://www.plannedparenthood.org/birth-control-pregnancy/birth-control/d >iaphragms-caps-and-shields.htm SignatureCharles Riggs >> I've never knowingly eaten tofu, but are you taking into account >> that there are both male and female condoms? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > No. Because a diaphragm does not resemble in form the condom used by > males. Notwithstanding that, condoms for use by females do exist. I've never seen one, but I gather that the difference is that they're not such a tight fit, and one end is flared to keep the outside on the outside, so to speak. SignaturePeter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses. The optusnet address could disappear at any time. >>> I've never knowingly eaten tofu, but are you taking into account >>> that there are both male and female condoms? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > tight fit, and one end is flared to keep the outside on the outside, > so to speak. I'm not denying that female condoms exist. Femidom is a brand name that springs to mind. As does the information, from a friend, that the main drawback to using one is that you rustle during sex. SignatureLinz Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford My accent may vary > I'm not denying that female condoms exist. Femidom is a brand name > that springs to mind. As does the information, from a friend, that > the main drawback to using one is that you rustle during sex. That must make you unpopular with ranchers. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The great thing about Microsoft 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |dominating the world is that Palo Alto, CA 94304 |there's no shortage of support |opportunities. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | Sam Alvis (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> I'm not denying that female condoms exist. Femidom is a brand name >> that springs to mind. As does the information, from a friend, that >> the main drawback to using one is that you rustle during sex. > > That must make you unpopular with ranchers. But popular with Rustle Crowe. SignaturePeter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses. The optusnet address could disappear at any time. > > I'm not denying that female condoms exist. Femidom is a brand name > > that springs to mind. As does the information, from a friend, that > > the main drawback to using one is that you rustle during sex. > > That must make you unpopular with ranchers. As in "hey, Sheriff, I hear the Brown Paper Kid's in town..." DC >> I'm not denying that female condoms exist. Femidom is a brand name >> that springs to mind. As does the information, from a friend, that >> the main drawback to using one is that you rustle during sex. > >That must make you unpopular with ranchers. By which you mean "one", I presume? SignatureLinz Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford My accent may vary >>> I'm not denying that female condoms exist. Femidom is a brand name >>> that springs to mind. As does the information, from a friend, that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > By which you mean "one", I presume? But _all_ ranchers dislike rustlers, I think -- even those they've never personally met (or heard). SignatureMaria Hotties! http://www.hottyhub.com >>>> I'm not denying that female condoms exist. Femidom is a brand name >>>> that springs to mind. As does the information, from a friend, that [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > But _all_ ranchers dislike rustlers, I think -- even those they've > never personally met (or heard). It was the 'you' I was taking issue with. >>>>> I'm not denying that female condoms exist. Femidom is a brand name >>>>> that springs to mind. As does the information, from a friend, that [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > It was the 'you' I was taking issue with. Ah. Of course. For some reason, I misread it. At this point, I was going to suggest a punishment for me of forty lashes with a wet condom*, but that's just too gross. (I hate it when I think of stuff like that.) *Forty lashes with a wet noodle is the usual saying. SignatureMaria >>>>>> I'm not denying that female condoms exist. Femidom is a brand name >>>>>> that springs to mind. As does the information, from a friend, that [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >At this point, I was going to suggest a punishment for me of forty >lashes with a wet condom*, but that's just too gross. (I hate it when I ^^^ >think of stuff like that.) > >*Forty lashes with a wet noodle is the usual saying. Did you mean "lubricated"? Sincerely, Gene Wirchenko Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation: I have preferences. You have biases. He/She has prejudices. > Maria wrote, in part: >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Did you mean "lubricated"? I'm not saying another word about this, even in explanation. SignatureMaria There's only one 'n' in my email address, and it's not in my first name. > I'm not denying that female condoms exist. Femidom is a brand name that > springs to mind. As does the information, from a friend, that the main > drawback to using one is that you rustle during sex. ...thus giving away your location to the enemy. SignatureSML >> I'm not denying that female condoms exist. Femidom is a brand name that >> springs to mind. As does the information, from a friend, that the main >> drawback to using one is that you rustle during sex. > >...thus giving away your location to the enemy. *giggle* SignatureLinz Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford My accent may vary >> I'm not denying that female condoms exist. Femidom is a brand name that >> springs to mind. As does the information, from a friend, that the main >> drawback to using one is that you rustle during sex. > >...thus giving away your location to the enemy. ...quite possibly while pinned. Sincerelky, Gene Wirchenko Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation: I have preferences. You have biases. He/She has prejudices. > dontbother <dontbother@mushmail.mom> said: [...] > I've never knowingly eaten tofu, but are you taking into > account that there are both male and female condoms? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > So a diaphragm is a condom? No. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan. Unmunged email: /at/easypeasy.com "Impatience is the mother of misery." > I thought they were elastic and took the shape of whatever it is they > find themselves embracing, just the way tofu absorbs the flavor of > whatever it's cooked with. I've eaten tofu recently, but I haven't > used a condom for decades, so I might no be remembering correctly. I've rarely eaten tofu, but to me it tastes roughly the same as the way I imagine an unused condom would taste. I've never tried to cook either of them. SignaturePeter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses. The optusnet address could disappear at any time. >> I thought they were elastic and took the shape of whatever it is they >> find themselves embracing, just the way tofu absorbs the flavor of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >I imagine an unused condom would taste. I've never tried to cook either >of them. Sometimes I dislike mental images more than I dislike STS. I'm picturing you there, Peter, chewing on some tofu trying to come up with an apt taste comparison. "Let's see...tree bark...a Pez container...and old Argyle sock...a Street Guide of Hobart...no...an unused condom...that's it!" SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL > dontbother wrote: >> I thought they were elastic and took the shape of whatever it [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the way I imagine an unused condom would taste. I've never tried > to cook either of them. If you put some diced tofu in a frying pan with green onions and Taiwanese barbeque sauce and stir-fry it for a few minutes, you might enjoy it more. The other thing you might do is buy some hand-made tofu instead of that shiny, slippery stuff they sell in the supermarket, which is called "supa-dofu" in Japan. I think an unused condom would probably taste something like surgical gloves, but since I haven't ever had one of those as an appetizer, entree, or desert, I'm not sure about that comparison either. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan. Unmunged email: /at/easypeasy.com "Impatience is the mother of misery." > I think an unused condom would probably taste something like surgical > gloves, but since I haven't ever had one of those as an appetizer, > entree, or desert, I'm not sure about that comparison either. I like jellyfish, but I suspect that it's about the closest you can find to surgical gloves among edible substances. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Now and then an innocent man is sent 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |to the legislature. Palo Alto, CA 94304 | Kim Hubbard kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ [...] > Incidental question: Southern California used to have a > restaurant shaped like a hat and a hardware store shaped > like a pumpkin, so is a condominium a building shaped like a > condom? ~SDC~ Q 1: fill in the blank to fit this pattern: Restaurant Derby Hardware store Pumpkin Condominium _______ (a) condom (b) anvil (c) sheep (d) cave (e) ________ Signaturerzed > [...] > > Incidental question: Southern California used to have a > > restaurant shaped like a hat and a hardware store shaped > > like a pumpkin, so is a condominium a building shaped like a > > condom? > ~SDC~ Q 1: fill in the blank to fit this pattern: > Restaurant Derby > Hardware store Pumpkin > Condominium _______ > (a) condom (b) anvil (c) sheep (d) cave (e) ________ e. A building shaped like a condom of smallest size (If condoms came in sizes--they don't, do they? Even if they don't, it seems like they could be imagined to, by a stretch.) By the way, a highly respected lady regular told us years ago that all penises were the same size, and she was a nurse, so she knew. I wonder if other nurses--or the same nurse, who I think is still with us--might want to comment on that. > rzed <rzantow@gmail.com> said: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > e. A building shaped like a condom of smallest size (If > condoms came in sizes--they don't, do they? I used to hear from all kinds of people in Tokyo that Japanese condoms were too small for most Westerners, but that was probably apocryphal. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan. Unmunged email: /at/easypeasy.com "Impatience is the mother of misery." >Incidental question: Southern California used to have a >restaurant shaped like a hat and a hardware store shaped >like a pumpkin, so is a condominium a building shaped like a >condom? Rather than "condominiums", aren't those usually called "designed by Norman Foster"? SignatureMillicent Tendency (TEFKATHE) >> Here we would do that with a condominium. I own the interior surface >> of all the interior walls of my unit, plus a 0.9756% interest in the >> trust which owns everything else, [...] > >Only the interior surface? Does that extra 0.9756% suffice to let you >hammer a picture hook into a wall? It comes with certain exclusive rights to do things with parts of the building that do not belong to me, subject to the bylaws of the trust. Hanging pictures is no problem; hanging windows requires permission. (Which would ordinarily be granted, since doing so is presumed to increase the value of the property.) -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness >> 999-year leases are alive and well and living in England. I have created >> several this year. Their main use is in the selling of flats (for [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > grantor; I'd have to look up in the documents to make absolutely > certain.) I hesitate to give a serious answer after the thread has degenerated into a discussion of "the man who put the condom in condominium" but... something akin to this has been introduced in England in the last couple of years, in the shape of the new concept of "commonhold". This is a worthy idea, but so far not much taken up in practice. Most modern schemes have previously achieved what Garrett describes by a traditional long lease arrangement, with the main structure owned by a management company. This company in turn has exactly the number of shares as the number of flats in the block, each flat owner having one share. It is then relatively easy to regulate the company's constitution so that the flat owners control the block as a whole, and the shares always stay with the individual owners. Regards Jonathan >> Here we would do that with a condominium. I own the interior surface >> of all the interior walls of my unit, plus a 0.9756% interest in the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> grantor; I'd have to look up in the documents to make absolutely >> certain.) [...] > Most modern schemes have previously achieved what Garrett describes by a > traditional long lease arrangement, with the main structure owned by a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > so that the flat owners control the block as a whole, and the shares > always stay with the individual owners. That sounds more like a co-op than a condo, co-ops being found mainly in New York (LCIA), where they were supposedly pioneered by Finnish immigrants. SignatureBuckwheat Soba >>> On 12 Nov 2006, Robert Lieblich wrote >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >fact which makes freehold flats unsatisfactory in practice), but they >are also used in the sale of other property, sometimes for tax reasons. I've now had time to rescue an article in yesterday's "Mail on Sunday" from the recycling box. It mentions a forthcoming book "Who Owns the World: The Hidden Facts Behind Land Ownership" by Kevin Cahill, which states that the only person in Britain who legally owns land is the Monarch. This dates back to Duke William, and is enshrined in current law as part of the explanatory notes to the Land Registration Act of 2002. These state that "The Crown is the only absolute owner of land in England and Wales: all others hold an estate in land. Estates, which derive from feudal terms of tenure, originally took many forms but were reduced by the Law of Property Act 1925 to two; an estate in fee simple - freehold - and an estate for a term of years - leasehold". Fee simple is a medieval term for the sum paid to represent the fact that freehold is a tenancy, with the Monarch as the ultimate landowner. The last time the Monarch exercised ownership rights was WWII, when 11 million acres of farmland was seconded for use by the military, but the Monarch cannot sell land from under her subjects' feet without an Act of Parliament. (Whew! Ed) This "legal ownership" of land is not to be confused with her private ownership of land as Elizabeth Windsor. Cahill's book will also cover ownership of land in other countries. SignatureRobin Herts, England >On 12 Nov 2006, Robert Lieblich wrote > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >I don't know if they were terminated by the Property Acts of the >1920s, but I didn't think they were. My flat in Chiswick was on a 999-year lease that was written in 1981. SignatureRobin Herts, England Robert Lieblich ra?e: > I use "period of performance" (and avoid "terminate" and > "termination") because the legal consequences of a contract can [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > after his employment ends. The effect of the contract extends beyond > the period of performance. Don't you think the non-competition clause you're referring to is still performance of certain obligations that survive the expiration? Anyway, I got many ideas from this thread, the best ones (seemingly, to me) being: 1. one word: duration 2. adjectives: open-ended vs. of limited duration. These are mainly necessary to me for translations. I perfectly understand that using one word, e.g. duration, will convey less meaning than "period of performance" but the latter may not be sufficiently exhaustive as well. I'd better use that one word and add several separate clauses to make sure that certain obligations survive the expiration. I only wonder now whether, gramatically, a contract expires or duration does. > I hasten to add, since it's no secret that I am a lawyer, that I am > not offering legal advice here. I'm commenting generally on how the > American English language is used in the drafting of contracts. This is precisely what I'm looking for in this great forum. I should perhaps use a signature stating that "my question is based on legal documents but limited to linguistic issues, with no legal advice being asked for" :) >This is precisely what I'm looking for in this great forum. I should >perhaps use a signature stating that "my question is based on legal >documents but limited to linguistic issues, with no legal advice being >asked for" :) That's sometimes called "fee avoidance". SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL >For some time already I'm trying to identify the word in English that >would correctly express the idea of the "*period of a contract". [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >But what would the noun be? "Period", "deadline", "term" - all seem >wrong here. The usual word used is "term". If you don't like that, you could use "duration". Personally, I don't like "Its" in your second sentence. I'd write "The contract is for a term of two years from the date of acceptance, and will terminate at the end of that period of time unless extended by mutual agreement of the parties." However, if the contract was for something important, I'd have a lawyer determine the wording. Legal usage can be different from English usage as discussed in this group. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL > For some time already I'm trying to identify the word in English > that would correctly express the idea of the "*period of a [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > But what would the noun be? "Period", "deadline", "term" - all > seem wrong here. "Duration" seems okay to me. I understand your lack of enthusiasm for "term". One usually says things like "according to the terms of the contract". > Same with adjectives. If there is no *period of the contract, > what would be the ONE ADJECTIVE to describe the contract? I've > seen the phrase "OPEN-ENDED contract". Is it > correct/native/grammatical? Yes, it's grammatical, native, and correct. I would understand this to mean that the contract had no set expiration date but could be terminated upon the agreement of the contracting parties. > What about the antonym of the adjective? "A contract of limited > period"? Very awkward, possibly ungrammatical. What about ONE > ADJECTIVE? How about "limited-duration"? SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan. Unmunged email: /at/easypeasy.com "Impatience is the mother of misery." [ ... ] > > What about the antonym of the adjective? "A contract of limited > > period"? Very awkward, possibly ungrammatical. What about ONE > > ADJECTIVE? > > How about "limited-duration"? All contracts are of limited duration. Anglo-American law does not permit a contract to extend into perpetuity. SignatureBob Lieblich Ask any fertile octogenarian > dontbother wrote: > [ ... ] [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > All contracts are of limited duration. Anglo-American law does not > permit a contract to extend into perpetuity. Sounds reasonable to me. My other suggestion was going to be this: "short-term-non-extendable-non-renewable" but I thought that any argument claiming that was only one word despite all the hypens would probably be labeled specious. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan. Unmunged email: /at/easypeasy.com "Impatience is the mother of misery." >[ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >All contracts are of limited duration. Anglo-American law does not >permit a contract to extend into perpetuity. How is a contract worded when the contract extends until canceled by one of the parties under the terms of cancellation in the contract? If, for example, rights are granted to use something? SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL >> [ ... ] >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > If, for example, rights are granted to use something? Isn't that a license? If so, it is revocable by either party. I got out of a paid-up American Trails membership by pointing this out to them -- the contract stated that it was a license for me to use their facilities, but didn't mention the part about licenses being "revocable". I wanted out, as they were charging outrageous annual fees, and I was no longer interested in using their campgrounds. The phone dude said that I had to keep paying or tranfer my membership to someone else. All it took was one letter to their lawyers to win my point. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/ >>> [ ... ] >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >a paid-up American Trails membership by pointing this out to them -- the >contract Like I asked about....a contract. Actually, though, I was thinking about a contract granting a right to access or summat. >stated that it was a license for me to use their facilities, but >didn't mention the part about licenses being "revocable". I wanted out, as >they were charging outrageous annual fees, and I was no longer interested in >using their campgrounds. The phone dude said that I had to keep paying or >tranfer my membership to someone else. All it took was one letter to their >lawyers to win my point. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL > For some time already I'm trying to identify the word in English that > would correctly express the idea of the "*period of a contract". > > Imagine such a clause of a contract: > > "The X of the contract is 2 years". 'Term'. > I need ONE NOUN instead of "X" that would correctly express the > following idea: > > "The contract will be deemed as terminated automatically in 2 years. > Its *period is 2 years. 'Term'. > If the parties do not extend the *period, Contract > the > contract is deemed as terminated in 2 years after the signature." [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > What about the antonym of the adjective? "A contract of limited > period"? Very awkward, possibly ungrammatical. What about ONE ADJECTIVE? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.