Rules governing the wording of British Standards

[ban-all-sheds]

Apparently I'm not allowed to find out here.

 

[Mottie]

What is Britush?

 

[bernardgreen]

A silent person who has British nationality......... hush keep it quiet

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Either that, or a stupid typo which cannot be edited after noticing it too late.

MOD: Title edited for you.

 

[Mottie]

 

[EFLImpudence]

Either that, or a stupid typo which cannot be edited after noticing it too late.

 

[mattylad]

So what did I miss? what was removed due to bitchy electricians cock fighting over words?

Or was there a genuine question about how British standards are worded?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

There is a more entertaining explanation of a portmanteau word combining a British-made artificial fibre often used for certain garments and an American slang word for a part of the body which might be covered by such a garment, but although many suitable images can easily be found to clarify the explanation, they probably wouldn't be allowed here.

 

[JohnW2]

So what did I miss? what was removed due to bitchy electricians cock fighting over words?

The 'cock fighting', if that's what you want to call it, was being practised primarily by a non-electrician - and it was certainly he who caused the thread to be locked.

Or was there a genuine question about how British standards are worded?

Not really a question.

There are conventions about how certain words (particularly ones like 'shall', 'must', may' etc.) should be used in Standards and various other documents, and the discussion was about the word 'may'. The convention in such documents is that it should only be used to mean 'is permitted', rather than the other 'dictionary definition' (and common everyday usage) to mean 'it is possible'. BS7671 appears not to fully follow that convention, since iut uses the word with the latter meaning as well as the former.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The 'cock fighting', if that's what you want to call it, was being practised primarily by a non-electrician - and it was certainly he who caused the thread to be locked.

By doing what?

Asking if the rules were mandatory?

Objecting to being called obtuse because I took note of the fact that BS 7671 clearly, and often, uses "may" to mean "might"?

It would be a pretty poor state of affairs if the rules for the forum allowed other people to insult me but did not allow me to object to that, or to ask for information, and to do both of those without insulting anybody myself.

None of my posts in the topic were deemed worthy of censure or editing.

Interesting to note that this was allowed to run on for 19 pages, and never got locked:

https://www.diynot.com/diy/threads/18th-544-1-2.510439

 

[mattylad]

As I do not know what the original thread you are referring to is all about, as it has probably gone I just assume that it developed into your normal slanging match, bitching against each other.
Like y'all normally do

Re the use of the wording, then perhaps this is something that you need to take up with BSI themselves, citing examples.

 

[JohnW2]

As I do not know what the original thread you are referring to is all about, as it has probably gone ...

Stll there - (click here) . Perhaps unusually, most of its content was more-or-less 'on topic', since it was a thread specifically about one particular regulation in BS7671.

I just assume that it developed into your normal slanging match, bitching against each other. Like y'all normally do

It wasn't really a slanging match, in as much as it was pretty one-sided - the majority of the 'argumentative' stuff consisted of (in some cases very lengthy) posts from one person.

Re the use of the wording, then perhaps this is something that you need to take up with BSI themselves, citing examples.

Indeed - although, in the meantime, those who wish (or have) to comply with BS7671 have to decide how to interpret regulations which contain the word in question. The reality is, needless to say, that in most cases it is glaringly obvious what was intended, even if they did not stick to the conventions they are meant to comply with! The sentence which more-or-less started that part of the discussion was (my emboldening):

"521.10.202 .... NOTE 1: Wiring systems hanging across access or egress routes may hinder evacuation and firefighting activities."

As said, in terms of the convention, that 'may' ought to mean "are allowed to" (or "are permitted to"). However, no-one in their right mind would think that the intended meaning was ...

"Wiring systems hanging across access or egress routes are allowed to hinder evacuation and firefighting activities."

!!!

Kind Regards, John[/URL]

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Interesting.

So you say

no-one in their right mind would think that the intended meaning was ...

"Wiring systems hanging across access or egress routes are allowed to hinder evacuation and firefighting activities."

and that's OK, but when I challenged EFLI for saying that that was what it meant that was one-sided arguing, was it?

What about when I truthfully, (and reasonably, never having been involved in writing standards) said that I was unaware that words used according to correct English meaning and usage could not be used in regulations, and that I did not know that in specification language the word "may" was stripped of the meaning "might", and Detlef said that he found it hard to believe that I was not being deliberately obtuse, should I have let that go, lest that be seen as one-sided arguing?

 

[JohnW2]

I think there may have been confusion. No-one is denying that BS7671 uses the word 'may' in both senses, and that, in most cases, it is fairly obvious which meaning is intended. However, that appears to go against the convention applicable to such documents which, presumably for the avoidance of any possible uncertainty, is to only use the word with the specific meaning defined for such documents. If one takes the view that what the document "actually says" is in the context of that convention, then, as EFLI said at the start of the discussion about the word, some of the things that BS7671 'actually says' are nonsensical.
The concern about allowing such a document to use the word in it's 'might' sense (as well as its 'giving permission' sense) is surely that it then becomes impossible to ever be certain that a 'may' statement is actually 'giving permission' - which I imagine why the word is not meant to be used with that meaning in such a document.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I think there may have been confusion. No-one is denying that BS7671 uses the word 'may' in both senses, and that, in most cases, it is fairly obvious which meaning is intended.

AFAICT it is fairly obvious in all cases.

The invitation to show an example where this is not the case still stands, bearing in mind that as soon as you give permission for something you are automatically making that thing possible.

However, that appears to go against the convention applicable to such documents which, presumably for the avoidance of any possible uncertainty, is to only use the word with the specific meaning defined for such documents.

And that's what I'd like to know. That's what I had asked in the other topic before it was unaccountably locked.

Are there rules which the writers must follow, or just conventions/guidelines which they should preferably follow?

If one takes the view that what the document "actually says" is in the context of that convention, then, as EFLI said at the start of the discussion about the word, some of the things that BS7671 'actually says' are nonsensical.
The concern about allowing such a document to use the word in it's 'might' sense (as well as its 'giving permission' sense) is surely that it then becomes impossible to ever be certain that a 'may' statement is actually 'giving permission' - which I imagine why the word is not meant to be used with that meaning in such a document.

That was discussed in the other topic and there's probably no point in re-hashing it - permission automatically creates possibility, possibility does not automatically create permission and it is blindingly obvious when that is the case, such as cables hanging down may be a hazard, faulty electric heating systems may cause fires, etc.

But I genuinely would like to know what rules govern the wording of British Standards, and whether they are mandatory or advisory.