Rules governing the wording of British Standards

[ban-all-sheds]

https://www.bsigroup.com/en-GB/abou...ernment-funding/how-government-funding-works/

 

[JohnW2]

Interesting. From what I can make out from this document , this 'funding' is rather odd, and I presume must appear in the BSI accounts as 'Rendering of services' - in relation to such things as giving government employees access to Standards. It sounds as if the support of Standards development may well be primarily relation to 'politically relevant' areas ("Most of the total funding is made available for activities in areas that promote key HMG policies, such as competitiveness, innovation, reduction of trade barriers, protection of consumer interests, environmental protection and procurement.").
In any event, it seems that this funding is relative 'peanuts', representing less than 1% of the funding of the BSI and, as above, at least some of that is for things like payment for government access to Standards (just as anyone else would have to pay - not 'funding' in the normal sense). I would therefore personally say that the BSI is not 'taxpayer-funded' in any important sense

 

[ban-all-sheds]

OK.

I'll settle for trading standards offences.

In a wider perspective it matters IF the "rules" quoted are actual, mandatory, hard-and-fast rules, because if they are then the BSI are taking taxpayer money to produce documents which are invalid, and they are selling a product which is invalid.

If following those rules is mandatory, then BS 7671 is not a valid British Standard - it simply cannot be, in just the same way that any product which fails to comply with the BS rules for its construction can validly claim to be BS compliant.

 

[JohnW2]

That would probably be true if there were 'mandatory rules'. However, we need some expert input, since I'm not even convinced that they are 'rules', let alone mandatory ones - it could be more like 'guidance' as regards 'conventions'. All that matters to me is that the document should be clear and unambiguous, regardless of any issues regarding rules, legalities or funding.
I would have thought that defining within the document the meanings that the 'shall/should/may etc. words' have within the document (and then abiding by those definitions) would be the simplest way to ensure that it was 'clear and unambiguous'.

 

[DetlefSchmitz]

Managed to get the laptop working again. Here is what I have

https://www.bsigroup.com/Documents/30342351.pdf

BS 0:2016 A standard for standards – Principles of standardization is published by BSI.

¶9.3.1 refers to: 'ISO/IEC Directives, Part 2, Rules for the structure and drafting of international standards', as being the fundamental reference point of all British Standards.

https://www.iso.org/sites/directives/current/part2/index.xhtml is that ISO document.

https://www.bsigroup.com/Documents/...ructure-and-drafting-of-UK-standards-2017.pdf seems to be some kind of a a UK version of this. I'm still too tired to be sure of the precise relationship.

Rules for the structure and drafting of UK standards
Second (present) edition, April 2017

¶7 Verbal forms for expression of provisions, contains the section I quoted previously.

(changed dollar to pilcrow)

 

[DetlefSchmitz]

I would have thought that defining within the document the meanings that the 'shall/should/may etc. words' have within the document (and then abiding by those definitions) would be the simplest way to ensure that it was 'clear and unambiguous'.

That is indeed what the organisation I did some work for are now doing with their standards. Words like 'Shall' appear in the definitions, and are capitalised to emphasise that the are keywords, and linked in every case to the definition. It was done to avoid any possibility of misunderstanding. While I don't want to give an example at the moment (and I think someone [probably you John] did already above), it is fairly common to have an example, not involving firemen dying, where the meaning of the word may can truly lead to misinterpretation. Strictly defining the word allows text to be written without thinking through each time whether there could be any ambiguity.

 

[JohnW2]

That is indeed what the organisation I did some work for are now doing with their standards. Words like 'Shall' appear in the definitions, and are capitalised to emphasise that the are keywords, and linked in every case to the definition. It was done to avoid any possibility of misunderstanding. While I don't want to give an example at the moment (and I think someone [probably you John] did already above), it is fairly common to have an example, not involving firemen dying, where the meaning of the word may can truly lead to misinterpretation. Strictly defining the word allows text to be written without thinking through each time whether there could be any ambiguity.

Quite so. Many of the official documents I deal with, albeit usually not Standards (mainly 'rules' of some sort, sometimes even legislation), presumably in the name of 'avoiding any possible uncertainty', within them even define words that, quite honestly, don't really need local definition (examples which come to mind are 'person', 'death' and 'pregnant').

As for the example I (or someone!) gave, you were perhaps referring to:

"The cable of lighting circuits may have just two cores, with no CPC."

If that appeared as the text of a regulation, then it it would obviously be totally ambiguous in the absence of a defined meaning (for the purpose of the document) of the word "may". In practice, of course, a regulation wouldn't say just that (unless it really was 'giving permission'), and a sentence like that would probably only appear in a 'Note' (as per the 'falling cables' issue which started this whole discussion) and, even then, would presumably be put into context by other text which preceded or followed it.

However, I obviously have not been able to consider every possible eventuality, so it remains possible that there could be a regulation including the word 'may' which, even with context, was genuinely ambiguous if the meaning of 'may' (within the document) was not defined - so, for the sake of a few words in a list of definitions (if not also the hyperlinks) it would seem eminently sensible to include such definitions.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I think this is similar to your example and does appear in 7671

Page 450 of BYB, Appendix 13, 1, 1 "The following optional voltage sources may be used:"

 

[JohnW2]

I think this is similar to your example and does appear in 7671 ... Page 450 of BYB, Appendix 13, 1, 1 "The following optional voltage sources may be used:"

I suppose that both meanings of the word apply there - i.e. it is possible that any of those three voltage sources could be used AND it is permissible to use any of them - so there's not really any ambiguity.

If it were 'possible' for any three to be used, but one or more of them was 'not permitted', it would presumably have to say so. Conversely, if any of them were 'not possible', then there would be no point in 'permitting' them.

As I said, I've yet to think of a credible example that would create a truly ambiguous regulation, even hypothetically (let alone something which actually exists in BS7671) but, as I also said, I am not sure that such an occurrence is actually impossible, so it seems sensible to use defined words.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I think the dual meaning of may must be an example of the dreaded "evolution of language"; clearly too late to alter.
Wherever 'may' is used it must imply both meanings unless you actually know beforehand.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/may

When used as 'giving permission' it also gives the impression of 'possibility' because it is not compulsory:
You may drive at over 70mph on a German autobahn but you may not - you don't have to.
permission (and/or possibility): possibility

On the other hand 'might' only relates to 'possibility':
You might drive at over 70mph on a British motorway but you might not.
possibility: possibility.
You may drive at over 70mph on a British motorway but you may not.
possibility(not permission): permission(and possibility).
You might drive at over 70mph on a British motorway but you may not.
possibility: permission(and possibility).
You may drive at over 70mph on a British motorway but you might not.
possibility(not permission): possibility.

So, clearly confusing if you don't know the rules already.

 

[JohnW2]

I think the dual meaning of may must be an example of the dreaded "evolution of language"; clearly too late to alter.

Perhaps, but it seems that any such evolution will have happened a very long time ago. Having had a quick look around, it seems that the word was first used (during or before 12th century) with the 'possible' meaning, but that the 'permission' meaning has also been around for centuries.

Wherever 'may' is used it must imply both meanings unless you actually know beforehand.

I'm not so sure about that. There are countless words that have two or more (often very different) meanings, but one does not (could not possibly, in many cases) intend all the meanings when one uses them!

On the other hand 'might' only relates to 'possibility':...

I'm not so sure about that, either. As I understand it, strictly speaking, 'might' is the past tense of 'may', and there is debate as to whether one should use 'might' when referring to past events.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

I'm not so sure about that, either. As I understand it, strictly speaking, 'might' is the past tense of 'may', and there is debate as to whether one should use 'might' when referring to past events.

I worded that very badly, since I'm not disagreeing with you.

I agree that 'might' is not really used to 'give permission'. What I was trying to say is that I think the reason for that may well be that, since it is a past tense, one cannot really 'give permission' retrospectively.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Past tense? Do you mean 'might have' and 'may have'?

Yes, a long time ago as in my link.


Do you, or anyone, know, where using to signify possibility, are there any differences between 'may' and 'might'?

 

[JohnW2]

Past tense? Do you mean 'might have' and 'may have'?

Yes, but some authorities (and 'people with views'!) seem to say that the former is only strictly correct for past events, and the latter only for present/future ones. In other words, they believe that ..

"he may travel to London via Oxford", and
"he might have travelled to London via Oxford"

... are correct, but

"he might travel to London via Oxford" (the travel not yet having happened), and
"he may have travelled to London via Oxford"

... are, strictly speaking, incorrect.

Yes, a long time ago as in my link.

It's not easy to see how that bit of 'evolution' came about (assuming that it was evolution). On the other hand, if I understand correctly what I'm reading, in etymological terms, the word 'may' derives from an Old German word meaning "have power", which sounds a bit closer to the 'permission' meaning than the 'possibility' one (but not too close to either!), although the meaning in English seems to have evolved in the opposite direction.

Do you, or anyone, know, where using to signify possibility, are there any differences between 'may' and 'might'?

See above for one possible answer to that, although most dictionaries etc. seem to say that either is acceptable. As for myself, I haven't a clue, and probably use all the forms interchangeably!

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Yes, but some authorities (and 'people with views'!) seem to say that the former is only strictly correct for past events, and the latter only for present/future ones. In other words, they believe that ..

Ok.

"he may travel to London via Oxford", and
"he might have travelled to London via Oxford"

... are correct, but

Ok. but "he may..." could also mean that he has been given permission which also implies it has not happened yet.

"he might travel to London via Oxford" (the travel not yet having happened), and
"he may have travelled to London via Oxford"

... are, strictly speaking, incorrect.

May be/ might be but that doesn't stop people using it wrongly and thus becoming right.

Could it once have been (lost now) like 'shall' and 'will' conjugations, i.e. I was taught -
I shall
You will
He/she/it will
We shall
You will
They will
and vice versa.

That seems to have been lost, so who can say what is right.

See above for one possible answer to that, although most dictionaries etc. seem to say that either is acceptable. As for myself, I haven't a clue, and probably use all the forms interchangeably!

Yes exactly. Who knows. We can't really trust dictionaries these days, let alone the internet.

More evolution.