solemn stillness or does the solemn stillness hold the air?
190
Of course one is
highly unlikely to find this sort of construction in a modern statute but it could
appear in an ancient one.
Syntax
Sometimes the order of words makes it unclear how words or phrases in a
sentence relate to one another. An example is the street sign: "Two hour
parking: residents' vehicles excepted”. Another example is the newspaper
headline: "Historic house saved from destruction by developer”.
191
Groucho
Marx uttered a famous one in the comedy film Animal Crackers
where he
claimed: “I once shot an elephant in my pyjamas”.
Reddendo singula singulis is a well recognised maxim of interpretation which
addresses one form of syntactic ambiguity.
Consider the instruction in the
hostel: "Beds and rooms must be made and cleaned by 9.30 am”. This could
mean that beds must be made and cleaned and rooms must be made and
cleaned. Alternatively it could mean that beds must be made and rooms must
be cleaned, which is clearly the sense here. The maxim of interpretation
reddendo singula singulis (literally, taking one with one) means that the
provisions can be read in this second sense. The items are to be taken
singularly so the each item in the first list is paired with the corresponding item
in the second list.
Another case involves negatives. Take the sentence: "John went to town on
Thursday to buy a present for Jane”. Now put this in negative form: "John did
not go to town on Thursday to buy a present for Jane”. The negative
potentially applies to any provision in the sentence. It could mean, for
example, that John did not go to town at all, that he went on a day that was not
Thursday, for example Wednesday, or that he bought a present but not for
Jane.
192
190
From a poetic point of view no doubt the author intended a bit of each - the
more holding the stiller it is, and as each holds the other the moment continues for
us forever. In this way in the midst of death with the graves in the churchyard we
are led to a sense of eternal life.
191
Some cases considering such ambiguity are Hawkesbury Development
Corporation v Landmark Finance [1969] 2 NSWR 782, Re Qantas and DCT (1979) 2
ALD 291, Victoria v Commonwealth
(PMA Case) (1975) 134 CLR 81, R v Jaagusta
[1974] 3 WWR 766.
192
For an analysis of how a privative clause is based on the structure of a
negative sentence see Christopher Enright “Anatomy of a Privative Clause”
(forthcoming) www.legalskills.com.au
 |
 |
 |