[PLUG-TALK] Re: [PLUG] Sounds good to me ;)

Jeme A Brelin jeme at brelin.net
Thu Jun 20 09:29:19 UTC 2002


On Wed, 19 Jun 2002, J Henshaw wrote:
> > It is possible for you to own a car, and for someone else to own the same
> > car. However, it's usually mutually exclusive as to who can drive the
> > car at one time.
> 
> Sounds like a good time to apply the more communicative "ours" or "shared"
> or " We own the car in an equity contract"

The above example IS a good time to apply "ours".  However, when I used
"yours" and "mine" to refer to one thing, I was indicating that MIGHT OR
MIGHT NOT share it.

It is yours and may or may not be mine.

I think that communicates the idea much better than the more cumbersome:

It is ours unless we do not share it, then yours and mine are different.

Would you have been less confused if I'd used some further indicator that
implied the additive nature of the successive attributes of possession?

Something like:
It is yours and may or may not be mine as well.

Perhaps then you wouldn't have gotten lost.

> The barristers however prefer to use Latin and Greek so you won't. And
> they twist meanings and use words designed to misdirect your mind and
> you think they mean "Yours" when it is "Ours" as per Title to your
> car.

Someone really hurt you as a child, didn't they?  Maybe you fell victim to
one of those "You just have ONE nickel and I have THREE Pennies, three is
more than one!" scams and lost your lunch money?

I'm sorry it left such a scar.  You really should try to trust again...
both others and yourself.

> It is of no small import I assure you,  can the examples above speak for
> themselves?

They can speak for some point, I'm sure, but it isn't the fact that
"yours" and "mine" are not mutually exclusive.

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org





More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list