I just realized I top-posted. I apologize. -Aris
On Sun, Apr 5, 2020 at 8:46 PM Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm not actually convinced by the region example; I initially read that > the other way, and on rereading think it's ambiguous. Still, the apple > example seems sound, and I find that a good enough as an analogue. Good > judgement! > > -Aris > > On Sun, Apr 5, 2020 at 5:56 PM Rebecca via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> A zombie auction can be terminated "if the Auction has not ended and the >> Auctioneer of that Auction cannot transfer any item included in a lot in >> that Auction" (as says rule 2552). In this case, one lot could not be >> transferred. The question is whether the auction can end if one lot cannot >> be transferred, or only if all of them cannot be transferred. >> >> The word "any" can mean each. In most legal contexts it does mean each(see >> SAS Institute v Iancu). But that only tends to be the case when it is used >> with "a singular noun in affirmative contexts" (this is quoting SAS >> Institute). In other contexts, any means "one or more selected items in a >> group". The sentence at issue here involves a negative context, and in >> such >> context, a legal dictate tends to apply when one or more of the items does >> not satisfy a condition, rather than when all of them do not. Let me >> provide an example sentence. "The supplier can embargo a certain region if >> we cannot receive safety assurances from any country included in the >> region". That sentence is basically a mirror of rule 2552, and it's clear >> to all that one country failing to provide assurances is enough for the >> whole region to be subject to embargo. >> >> Alexis offers a sentence similar to "I can't understand any of your >> questions". In this case, any clearly means each, all questions are >> incomprehensible to the speaker. That example sentence, though, is much >> further away from the rule itself than mine, and mine disproves the rule >> offered that "any" after a negated verb always means "each". Instead, I >> think, it is purely contextual. But take this sentence "if any item can't >> be transferred, the auction can be cancelled". That's just a simplified >> and >> switched up version of the actual rule at issue, but I don't think anyone >> can read that at first scan and think that _every_ item must be unable to >> be transferred >> >> I have said before in CFJs that we resolve textual arguments not like >> robots, but with the reading of reasonable English speakers in mind. I am >> not pointed to any grammatical canon which clearly resolves this case. >> Indeed, looking at grammatical explanations of the word "any" available to >> me, two different meanings seemed to be distinguishable often only by >> context. My first reading of the rule 2552 is that one inability to >> transfer nixes the whole auction. Take this sentence "A worker CAN dispose >> of a shipment of apples if any apple within it cannot be eaten". In that >> case, just like this one, one rotten apple spoils the bunch, consistent >> with, although not strictly required by, rules of grammar. >> >> On the basis of natural grammar, my first reading as a reasonable speaker, >> and the context of one wrong thing being involved in a lot of multiple, >> inextricable things (just like my regions or apples examples), I judge CFJ >> 3826 FALSE >> >> -- >> From R. Lee >> >
