On Jun 6, 2014, at 1:04 PM, Leif Sawyer <[email protected]> wrote: > On 6/6/14, 11:04 , David Farmer wrote: >> [...]Given the "should" is immediately followed by a conditional "unless" >> the intent seems sufficiently clear, the intent is to create a special-case >> exception, and "should" seems appropriate. Furthermore, "must" or "shall" >> followed by "unless" seemed an awkward way to create such an exception. >> >> Staff generally agrees that in most cases for policy "must" is preferred >> and it is best to avoid "should" in most cases. However, in the sentence >> above the intent seem clear enough and "should" seems appropriate in that >> particular case. > > Unfortunately, that still has indirect parsing issues. > > 1. You should eat an ice-cream cone, unless you ate a taco. > [and then you shouldn't...but you still could] > > 2. You must eat an ice-cream cone, unless you ate a taco. > [ sorry, no ice-cream for you, taco-eater. You get a churro instead. ]
I parse sentence one as permitting an ice-cream cone after a taco, but giving one the option of not eating an ice cream cone in either case. I parse sentence two as requiring me to eat an ice cream cone unless I eat a taco. However, if I eat a taco, I still have the option of eating an ice cream cone if I wish. As such, I don’t believe it accomplishes your stated intent, in fact. Owen _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
