Modifying Words
Modifying words consist of adjectives and adverbs. Sometimes it is not clear
how a modifier modifies a word or phrase.
193
For example, is a "lazy student"
a student who is generally lazy, or who is lazy in their study? Is a criminal
lawyer a lawyer who acts for criminals or a lawyer who is a criminal?
'And' as Conjunction or Disjunction
The word 'and' is commonly thought of and described as a conjunction. It
can, however, also be used in a disjunctive sense. An illustration is s23 of the
former Town and Country Planning Act 1953
(NZ).
194
It provided in part:
"Every owner and occupier of land affected by a proposed district
scheme…may object to the scheme”. In order to object to a scheme does a
person have to be both an owner and an occupier, a conjunctive use of
'and,'
195
or is it sufficient if they are either an owner or an occupier, a
disjunctive use?
Ambiguity of Implication
[T]he sages of the law heretofore have construed statutes quite contrary to
the letter in some appearance, and those statutes which comprehend all
things in the letter, they have expounded to extend but to some things, and
those which generally prohibit all people from doing such an act, they have
interpreted to permit some people to do it, and those which include every
person in the letter they have adjudged to reach to some persons only.
196
Introduction
Qualification
There is a sign in London underground stations that says: "Dogs must be
carried on the escalator”. Take this literally, and to ride on the escalator it is
necessary to possess and to carry a dog. This sign is ambiguous as written
although in context the meaning is reasonably clear. It is addressed to those
people who already have a dog with them, not those who do not have a dog. It
is telling those who have a dog that they must carry it when they ride the
escalator.
197
193
Evans (1989) p 85
194
Evans (1989) p 81
195
If this is the meaning the phrase is referred to as a hendiadys.
196
Stradling v Morgan (1560) 75 ER 305, 315. See also Bowtell v Goldsborough Mort
& Co Limited (1905) 3 CLR 444, 457-458, Commercial Union Insurance Co Ltd v Colonial
Carrying Co of New Zealand Ltd [1937] NZLR 1041, 1047-1049.
197
Another illustration, from L Witgenstein Philosophical Investigations
1953
para 70, concerns the parents who instruct the babysitter to teach their children a
game if they need to be occupied. What if the babysitter taught them polo cross? It
is hardly what the parents wanted. By game they meant some game suitable for
children of their age and in their circumstances.
 |
 |
 |