You have 'yet to see' because you are setting a very high standard. In
your example, 'apparatus' without any qualification (I.e. adjective,
such as 'electronic') means 'all apparatus'. 'Includes... or' is
strictly wrong simply because there are in fact no two cases (like
'apples or pears'). When you ask 'Is AC powered apparatus included?, the
answer is 'Yes'. If you ask 'Is battery powered apparatus included?, the
answer is also 'Yes'. So 'and' is better.
There are many cases in English usage of small words being chosen
wrongly. A classic case is 'This is different than that', which should
be 'This is different from that'. But any difference in real meaning is
microscopic at most. For example, 'You are taller from me' is wrong (and
isn't said anywhere in Britain as far as I know); that should be 'than'.
Electrical and electronics engineers are not selected for language
skills. Amongst that population there is a selection process that puts
those with more language skills into standards committees, where they
become the proactive members who do most of the work. Many other members
are not proactive and prefer not to write anything but just agree or
disagree.
Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2019-08-23 15:04, Gert Gremmen wrote:
> I think it would be very difficult to get ambiguous language
accepted by National Committees, the Chairman and Secretary of the
committee and the Central Office editors.
On that topic we do differ in opinion.
I have yet to see a standard which is fully clear, complete and
exhaustive and precise in its technical specifications.
A simple example from the scope of a recent concept standard:
/This document applies to apparatus intended for use in residential,
commercial and light-industrial//
//environments as well as to apparatus intended for use in industrial
environments, and includes AC-, DC-//
//or battery powered apparatus. /
What type of apparatus is included ?
Is the "or" in front of battery correctly used, should it not be
"and", or is this an example of Euro-English (contextual
comprehensible ?), and what would lawyers make of this.....
--
On 23-8-2019 14:10, John Woodgate wrote:
Yes, of course I know about ISO/IEC Directives Part 2 and CEN/CENELEC
IRs Part 3, but in 2005 when I wrote the document these rules were
not widely known (and they still aren't known widely enough). What
'makes a difference in a legal sense' is a very big subject indeed.
How 'creative' is your lawyer? Is that 'black' or 'very dark white'?
I think it would be very difficult to get ambiguous language accepted
by National Committees, the Chairman and Secretary of the committee
and the Central Office editors.
Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associateswww.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2019-08-23 12:25, Gert Gremmen wrote:
Hi John,
Great many thank's ;<)
I will study them and use them for the benefit of standardization.
You must be aware of Internal Regulations 3 (CENELEC) that included
some of your "must", "shall" and similar constructions to use and
not use.
Thank you for noticing my own euro-english (must be inspired by your
example); what i would like to know is if such "errors" create any
difference in a legal sense.
Many of the to-be-cited-in-the-official-journal harmoni(z)(s)ed
standards fail because of (intentional?) ambiguous language, plainly
confusing constructions and sometimes even the -opposite of what is
meant- is said, though the meaning is clear when read in context
(contextual comprehensible ?) Legally some (euro english)
constructions create problems.
So if anymore has more examples, let them come to this list !
Thanks, list members.
Gert
On 23-8-2019 11:26, John Woodgate wrote:
Hello, Gert. In my opinion, there is no 'factually wrong' for
British English. We don't have an 'Academy' as in France. The only
thing you can say about 'I were going to work' is that 'were' is
'contrary to usage', which is 'was'. Of course, some wordings may
be more 'contrary to usage' than others.
You own message has an example of Euro-English - 'within the next
years'. I would say 'within the next few years'. There is no
sensible grammatical reason for including 'few', it's just 'what
people say'.
I actually wrote a document on this subject many years ago,
although it was not widely circulated. I have attached it.
Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associateswww.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2019-08-23 09:16, Gert Gremmen wrote:
Hi John (et al),
I noticed with quite interest your statement on the Euro-English;
do you think that is where it shall go within the next years,
eventually ?
I'd appreciate if you would provide us with other (many please)
examples of -factually wrong- but common phrases as found in EU
language, be it legal text or standards text.
As a not-native speaker these alterations of the "offcial British
Enlish" go noticed for me (but for some), and i think it is
important to have a list of these available. In my current job at
the EU i encounter all kind of non-native speaker created English
language constructions, not always fully in error, and if one
wants can understood as meant, but do create confusions in some cases.
So please, all UK and of course all US native speakers, use your
Friday spare time and let us all know what you have found, if
possible with some explanation, if not evident.
I will create a list and re-publish for the use of all.....
Thanks
Gert Gremmen
On 23-8-2019 9:40, John Woodgate wrote:
Two points:
* EN standards are not 'European Norms', which were/are a very
old set of standards to do with the Coal and Steel Community,
a forerunner of the EU. ENs are 'European Standards'.
* Nominally, 'British English' is used, but since no-one knows
exactly what that is, few people bother. There is also
'Euro-English', which has a few word-forms that are not used
by British English native speakers (e.g. 'within the next
days', different meanings of 'respectively' and 'eventually').
Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associateswww.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
--
Independent Expert on CE marking
Harmonised Standards (HAS-) Consultant @ European Commission for RED and EMC
EMC Consultant
Electrical Safety Consultant
--
Independent Expert on CE marking
Harmonised Standards (HAS-) Consultant @ European Commission for RED and EMC
EMC Consultant
Electrical Safety Consultant
-
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <[email protected]>
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used
formats), large files, etc.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <[email protected]>
Mike Cantwell <[email protected]>
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher: <[email protected]>
David Heald: <[email protected]>
