Domais The Domster! Strategos (LazGuard Commander) Citizen Resident (Lazarus) Verified Became a Citizen Citizen 6 Months Citizen 12 Months Joined Nov 6, 2018 Messages 829 Feather ƒ2,895 Nation Domais Region Lazarus Sep 21, 2020 #1 I recently learned that shall does not always mean will, it also can mean may, or must. I think we should remove the use of shall in our legal code and replace it with, will, must or may. I thinking of drafting a proposal but I would like to know what you guys think first. Last edited by a moderator: Jun 6, 2021
I recently learned that shall does not always mean will, it also can mean may, or must. I think we should remove the use of shall in our legal code and replace it with, will, must or may. I thinking of drafting a proposal but I would like to know what you guys think first.
McChimp Staff member Epilektoi (CLS) Citizen Resident (Lazarus) Verified Citizen 6 Months Citizen 12 Months Became a Citizen Joined Jul 16, 2018 Messages 619 Feather ƒ2,940 Nation Custadia Region Lazarus Sep 21, 2020 #2 In what case does "shall" not mean "will"? I cannot find a reputable source suggesting anything other than that in modern English they are used interchangeably.
In what case does "shall" not mean "will"? I cannot find a reputable source suggesting anything other than that in modern English they are used interchangeably.
Domais The Domster! Strategos (LazGuard Commander) Citizen Resident (Lazarus) Verified Became a Citizen Citizen 6 Months Citizen 12 Months Joined Nov 6, 2018 Messages 829 Feather ƒ2,895 Nation Domais Region Lazarus Sep 21, 2020 #3 Perhaps just in the US?
McChimp Staff member Epilektoi (CLS) Citizen Resident (Lazarus) Verified Citizen 6 Months Citizen 12 Months Became a Citizen Joined Jul 16, 2018 Messages 619 Feather ƒ2,940 Nation Custadia Region Lazarus Sep 21, 2020 #4 The Oxford English dictionary I'm looking at is pretty clear that "shall" is valid when speaking in terms of obligation, which is what's in question here. "Thou shalt not kill" would be a good example of similar usage accepted in a common text.
The Oxford English dictionary I'm looking at is pretty clear that "shall" is valid when speaking in terms of obligation, which is what's in question here. "Thou shalt not kill" would be a good example of similar usage accepted in a common text.
Domais The Domster! Strategos (LazGuard Commander) Citizen Resident (Lazarus) Verified Became a Citizen Citizen 6 Months Citizen 12 Months Joined Nov 6, 2018 Messages 829 Feather ƒ2,895 Nation Domais Region Lazarus Sep 21, 2020 #5 Did you not read the hypelink?
joWhatup Citizen Resident (Lazarus) Verified Became a Citizen Citizen 6 Months Citizen 12 Months Joined Aug 11, 2018 Messages 341 Feather ƒ1,750 Nation Kingdom of Napels Sep 21, 2020 #6 Do we really have to go over this? What is the potential issue here? If the use of the word shall becomes a major issue that should probably mean we need to find something to be less bored with I'm sure you're well-intentioned here, I just don't see a particular reason to go through the long and tedious process of changing the word "shall".
Do we really have to go over this? What is the potential issue here? If the use of the word shall becomes a major issue that should probably mean we need to find something to be less bored with I'm sure you're well-intentioned here, I just don't see a particular reason to go through the long and tedious process of changing the word "shall".
Frankender Recalcitrant Verified Joined Aug 14, 2020 Messages 423 Feather ƒ1,906 Nation Frankender Region Lazarus Sep 23, 2020 #7 Domais;10790 said: Perhaps just in the US? Click to expand... Hard to tell that that was a link lol, but actually you bring up a good point. I support legislation to bring this change.
Domais;10790 said: Perhaps just in the US? Click to expand... Hard to tell that that was a link lol, but actually you bring up a good point. I support legislation to bring this change.
McChimp Staff member Epilektoi (CLS) Citizen Resident (Lazarus) Verified Citizen 6 Months Citizen 12 Months Became a Citizen Joined Jul 16, 2018 Messages 619 Feather ƒ2,940 Nation Custadia Region Lazarus Sep 24, 2020 #8 I don't know what kind of contortions these people have pulled in order to persuade themselves that "shall" can mean "may". It even says that up until recently law schools have commonly taught students that "shall" and "must" are synonymous, in keeping with the definition I have referenced from a common and well-respected dictionary. Whatever bureaucratic writing standards apply to the US legal system do not apply here. Imitating them can only serve to make legislation less accessible to our citizens. Firmly against the concept.
I don't know what kind of contortions these people have pulled in order to persuade themselves that "shall" can mean "may". It even says that up until recently law schools have commonly taught students that "shall" and "must" are synonymous, in keeping with the definition I have referenced from a common and well-respected dictionary. Whatever bureaucratic writing standards apply to the US legal system do not apply here. Imitating them can only serve to make legislation less accessible to our citizens. Firmly against the concept.
Frankender Recalcitrant Verified Joined Aug 14, 2020 Messages 423 Feather ƒ1,906 Nation Frankender Region Lazarus Sep 25, 2020 #9 McChimp;10818 said: Whatever bureaucratic writing standards apply to the US legal system do not apply here. Imitating them can only serve to make legislation less accessible to our citizens. Click to expand...
McChimp;10818 said: Whatever bureaucratic writing standards apply to the US legal system do not apply here. Imitating them can only serve to make legislation less accessible to our citizens. Click to expand...
McChimp Staff member Epilektoi (CLS) Citizen Resident (Lazarus) Verified Citizen 6 Months Citizen 12 Months Became a Citizen Joined Jul 16, 2018 Messages 619 Feather ƒ2,940 Nation Custadia Region Lazarus Sep 26, 2020 #10 When I say "bureaucratic writing standards", I mean the actual FAA policy he linked. These are motivated by the complexities of common law and are therefore not representative of the language itself. "Shall" is an archaic synonym of "will" used in tandem with a limited set of pronouns or, in the context of obligation, any pronoun. I don't need to google that because I looked it up in a paperback dictionary several days ago. A law does not need to explicitly say "must" because laws are authoritative; because a law says you will or shall do something, you must do it. If you don't then you have violated the law by way of your actions contradicting it and are therefore guilty of misconduct or otherwise at the mercy of the delegate's ire. It's logical, differing wholly from an emotional assertion like "they shall succeed" or "they will succeed", in which cases the person is making a statement that may not be true in order to express the depth of their dependence on that condition. It makes laws less accessible because it means anybody who wants to write one will have to endure fruitless arguments about trivialities instead of its actual intent. It's just laying a mine for potential legislators to step on.
When I say "bureaucratic writing standards", I mean the actual FAA policy he linked. These are motivated by the complexities of common law and are therefore not representative of the language itself. "Shall" is an archaic synonym of "will" used in tandem with a limited set of pronouns or, in the context of obligation, any pronoun. I don't need to google that because I looked it up in a paperback dictionary several days ago. A law does not need to explicitly say "must" because laws are authoritative; because a law says you will or shall do something, you must do it. If you don't then you have violated the law by way of your actions contradicting it and are therefore guilty of misconduct or otherwise at the mercy of the delegate's ire. It's logical, differing wholly from an emotional assertion like "they shall succeed" or "they will succeed", in which cases the person is making a statement that may not be true in order to express the depth of their dependence on that condition. It makes laws less accessible because it means anybody who wants to write one will have to endure fruitless arguments about trivialities instead of its actual intent. It's just laying a mine for potential legislators to step on.
Roavin Citizen Verified Became a Citizen Citizen 6 Months Citizen 12 Months Joined Jul 12, 2018 Messages 194 Feather ƒ1,589 Nation Lazarene Roavin Sep 30, 2020 #11 RFC 2119, which defines these words for the documents that specify the things that run the internet, sees "MUST" and "SHALL" as synonyms for its purposes. I tend to refer to these definition when writing something, be it a law for a region or IRL in my field of work (software development).
RFC 2119, which defines these words for the documents that specify the things that run the internet, sees "MUST" and "SHALL" as synonyms for its purposes. I tend to refer to these definition when writing something, be it a law for a region or IRL in my field of work (software development).