Michael Scott wrote:
Rohan,
If I understand what you are trying to say, then that's why draftsmen go to great lengths to word legislation in exactly the way it is intended to be meant. That's why loopholes happen and that's why, when judges tend to get the meaning not quite right, amendments are made or legislation is changed to attempt to get it right. It's why higher courts interpret and set precedents as to the meaning of legislation.
Or, I've completely misunderstood your point :/.
Yes; but the fault is mine . My response was a digression into the nature of language following Lev's comment. Specifically the nature of words, the nature of their definitions and whether some non-arbitrary method exists for selecting definitions for dictionaries. The later unlike legal definitions can not rely on some accepted authority. Well one could decide that the 'Oxford Concise' for example, is the only acceptable authority; but my theory would be : " *dictionary definition of a word *[tentative] To the end that a word is a social artefact', in particular a tool; one of whose purposes is to convey meaning between members of it's social sub-group, the purpose of a dictionary definition is to provide that description of the subjective category, which is the referent of the word; most preferred by members of it's social sub-group; subject to the conditions that it is: concise (using as few words as possible), precise (being as unambiguous as possible), exhaustive ( including all intended usages and excluding all others) and reductive ( using only words simpler than that being defined) apologies Rohan McLeod