AFDD in 18th 2nd Amendment

[nicebutdim]

Definition of shall:
"Shall" is a modal verb used to indicate future action. It is most commonly used in sentences with "I" or "we," and is often found in suggestions, such as "Shall we go?" "Shall" is also frequently used in promises or voluntary actions.

There is a difference between shall and must. If they want to change the definitions of words from dictionaries then they have to state what their words mean. Page 18? If there is an absence of them not supplying a definition for their changed meanings of words, the dictionary meanings are what we go by. Must is well .... must. We all know what that means. No ambiguity. Anything else besides must, does not have to be done.

421.1.7 says: "AFDD"..."shall be provided".

Shall is clearly not must. In short, with must you have to do it. Maybe page 18 clears the air. People need to know if they have to or it is optional.

You've made my point here. In any sentence, not ending with a question mark, the word tells you what you will do.

When used ask a question it is suggestive of what you might do.

The regs don't suffix sentences containing shall with a question mark.

 

[John-SJW]

Page 18, in part:

Verbal forms used in BS7671

Implication​	Verbal form​	Typical context​
Requirement	Shall	Normative element
Recommendation	Should	Informative element

I can see why they had to put in their own definition. The regs were written over decades by many people, using different words.

They are not changing the definitions of words, you are using the wrong definition for the context.

They are not using the correct words. So much they have to put in definitions. If I was writing it, and I have done tech' writing, I would use the word must not shall, which has no ambiguity.

 

[mainline]

I can see why they had to put in their own definition. The regs were written over decades by many people, using different words.

They are not using the correct words. So much they have to put in definitions. If I was writing it, and I have done tech' writing, I would use the word must not shall, which has no ambiguity.

Shall, “denotes a requirement that is mandatory whenever the criterion for conformance with the specification requires that there be no deviation”

Shall, this word implies obligation and is traditionally used by laws and regulations.


Churchill’s dicta “We SHALL fight on the beaches”

You SHALL be taken to the place from whence you came, and from there be taken to a place of execution. You shall be hung by the neck until the body be dead, like this thread should be.

You could always write to the IET expressing your concerns.

A bit pointless though as that concern has already been clarified by page 18.

 

[John-SJW]

The regs date back many, many, decades, with some words in the regs being there before any of us were born. Thanks for highlighting Churchill. He used words in vogue at the time. Words can be trendy, or the thing to write at the time. The French always say the English never say what they really mean. We also try to be polite by not being direct and to the point, circumnavigating around. We tend, or tended, to think being direct was rude. The French are right. Look at American writings, there is much less ambiguity. Believe me, I have poured through some US regs. Short and sharp.

If something must be done, I always wrote must. Why? Because I had a few misinterpret what I wrote once, then after tried never to make that mistake again. The Charge of the Light Brigade was a screw up because of poor writing that was misinterpreted.

 

[John-SJW]

You could always write to the IET expressing your concerns.

A bit pointless though as that concern has already been clarified by page 18.

I do not think it is pointless. They are still using ambiguity to the point they need a definition. They are using legacy writing. They can keep the definition of course as most of the regs were written way back. But future writings must be direct and clear and unambiguous.

 

[nicebutdim]

I do not think it is pointless. They are still using ambiguity to the point they need a definition. They are using legacy writing. They can keep the definition of course as most of the regs were written way back. But future writings must be direct and clear and unambiguous.

In light of this conversation, and a recently posted video of a similar conversation, I think you may have a valid point.

While I've read many debates over regulations, it never occurred to me that electricians would argue over the meaning of a word for which clear definition exists.

 

[mainline]

I do not think it is pointless. They are still using ambiguity to the point they need a definition. They are using legacy writing. They can keep the definition of course as most of the regs were written way back. But future writings must be direct and clear and unambiguous.

It is pointless in this particular instance as clearly it has been addressed as already stated.

I agree that future writings SHALL be direct, clear, and unambiguous.

 

[John-SJW]

I agree that future writings SHALL be direct, clear, and unambiguous.

Yes it MUST be.

 

[John-SJW]

it never occurred to me that electricians would argue over the meaning of a word for which clear definition exists.

Only of you read page 18. This came about because of the ambiguity of whether AFDDs must or not be fitted in certain situations.

 

[nicebutdim]

Yes it MUST be.

Must we go to those lengths?

When must is used as a question it becomes optional, similarly to shall.

Only of you read page 18. This came about because of the ambiguity of whether AFDDs must or not be fitted in certain situations.

Page 18 only becomes relevant if one doesn't understand the meaning of 'shall'.

If someone doesn't understand the meaning of 'must' they'd find themselves in the same situation.

Best way to clear up any ambiguity, if someone isn't sure what a word means, is to look it up in a dictionary. A tried and tested method that precludes any argument.

 

[John-SJW]

After all this you still do not get it.

 

[nicebutdim]

After all this you still do not get it.

I get it - you think the regs should be re-worded as you doubt the meaning of 'shall' and believe others are likely to find themselves in the same boat.

This discussion provides only a small sample of electricians, but all of them are perfectly clear on the meaning of this word.

I mentioned a video that was recently posted in which one person had the same issue, but I'm sure it would be possible to find a YouTube video in which people struggle with the meaning of any word.

If you feel strongly about this issue, it would be better to raise it with the IET.

 

[mainline]

I mentioned a video that was recently posted in which one person had the same issue, but I'm sure it would be possible to find a YouTube video in which people struggle with the meaning of any word.

This may very well be the same person

 

[loz2754]

There has never been any doubt in my mind that the word "shall" means that it is not optional.
However, I am to some extent a product of the environment I was raised in, and this is the interpretation of "shall" that I was always exposed to. I do not rule out that others' experiences may differ to my own.
Languages are fluid and words and their meanings can change over time.
This is why it's good that the writers/editors of the wiring regulations see fit to include definitions that make clear the intended use of such important wordage.

 

[mainline]

There has never been any doubt in my mind that the word "shall" means that it is not optional.
However, I am to some extent a product of the environment I was raised in, and this is the interpretation of "shall" that I was always exposed to. I do not rule out that others' experiences may differ to my own.
Languages are fluid and words and their meanings can change over time.
This is why it's good that the writers/editors of the wiring regulations see fit to include definitions that make clear the intended use of such important wordage.

As does the English dictionary