Rules governing the wording of British Standards

[mattylad]

Sooooo......

Have BSI got back to you with their reply when you asked them about this issue?

(to whoever has contacted BSI).

 

[JohnW2]

Sooooo...... Have BSI got back to you with their reply when you asked them about this issue?

It was actually the IET (as co-author of BS7671) that I asked - but, no, they haven't yet 'got back to me'. However, it's only been a few days, and my experience is that it can take them ages to respond (if ever) to such queries (I have several 'outstanding queries' to which they haven't yet responded, which I remind them about every few months!).

Kind Regards, John

 

[mattylad]

I take it your having a quiet week at work and needed to nitpick something so the likes of BS7671 got thoroughly dismantled, did you go through it and highlight certain words different colours, make lists on how many times they were used and spot any other imagined issues?

This just may have created a 4 page thread... lol

 

[ban-all-sheds]

That would probably be true if there were 'mandatory rules'.

Precisely.

Was it mandatory for the authors of BS 7671 to comply with it...

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

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

In a wider perspective it matters IF the "rules" quoted are actual, mandatory, hard-and-fast rules.

If following those rules is mandatory, then...

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'.

I've not had a chance yet to look at the info Detlef has provided - some time today, I hope.

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'.

Yup.

And I'm not aware of any instances in BS 7671 where the meaning of "may" is not 'clear and unambiguous'.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

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.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

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

Far too late. Whichever was the original, AFAICT both meanings have existed for hundreds of years.

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

Except that some of your examples are so tortuous that they would never be used.

But as for the rules:

IMO, anybody who cannot tell from the context whether "may be" means "might be" or "is permitted to be" when it matters probably has no business trying to do electrical work.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

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

The Shorter Oxford has that entry - basically says 'may' = 'can'.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Yup.
And I'm not aware of any instances in BS 7671 where the meaning of "may" is not 'clear and unambiguous'.

You may be right,

but don't you agree that that is because you already know the rules and already know what is meant?

The problem surely is for people who are not as conversant with the rules who might interpret it wrongly - though as you say they probably shouldn't be doing the work.



It is similar to your argument that there is no such thing as 'political correctness gone mad' because you merely say that any examples given are not political correctness.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

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

Not necessarily.

"I saw Fred up here the other day - I thought he'd been barred from coming?"
"No, he may travel to London via Oxford"

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.

I remember being taught that the difference between "will" and "shall" was one of prediction vs intent/instruction (not necessarily that way round).

The example used was "I will fall in the water and no-one shall save me" vs "I shall fall in the water and no-one will save me". B*****ed if I can remember which was supposed to be daft.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I do still love the irony of this:

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

People telling others how to write when they themselves make errors in the way they word their rules.

 

[JohnW2]

I take it your having a quiet week at work and needed to nitpick something so the likes of BS7671 got thoroughly dismantled, did you go through it and highlight certain words different colours, make lists on how many times they were used and spot any other imagined issues?

If that is directed at me, the answer is most definitely no - and, for what it's worth, I'm actually currently very busy with work.

It all started because I merely pointed out that the revised reg might confuse some people because, although it has now been changed to apply everywhere (not just in escape routes, as in 17th), the first note to the reg still says that falling cables in escape routes may hinder firefighting etc. Someone then picked up on the 'may' word in that sentence, leading to one of those only-too-common incessant discussions about 'words'. I suppose it's a bit different in this case, in that it appears that there probably are rules/conventions/guidances about the use of words in Standards with which BS7671 is not complying - but that doesn't make the discussion any less tedious or protracted.

In situations like this, I often try to get at least some sort of statement (which I rarely do get) from the IET as to their view/interpretation/whatever, since there's nothing to be gained by people arguing amongst themselves here.

As for the on-topic issue, as I said very early on, I doubt that it is anything like as big a deal (or change) as some people seem to think. Certainly in my experience, cables which are prevented from falling only by their 'fixings' (cable clips, plastic trunking or whatever) are pretty rare - there are certainly none i can think of in my house, nor any I've noticed in other houses I visit. Surface-mounted cables are, in terms of the big picture, uncommon enough in the first place, high-up horizontal runs of it even less common and, even when such does exist, the cable is usually prevented from falling by termination in accessories, coming through holes in walls etc., even if the clips/whatever fail.

Kind Regards, John