lawyer grammar queenbing_crosbyMay 12 2008, 02:23:31 UTC
emphasis only, I would think. And let me test this out-- like "or" vs "and/or," it's more vague than the shorter version while claiming to be more specific.
Re: lawyer grammar queencommandercrankyMay 12 2008, 03:54:08 UTC
I wasn't sure when I posted this, but I've thought about it more and I think there is an important difference. I disagree that the longer version is vague. It's the shorter version that is less specific.
For example (to borrow from vampyrecat), imagine two different rules:
1. If you clean your room you get a cookie.
2. If and only if you clean your room you get a cookie.
Under rule 1 there might be other ways to get a cookie, but we know this is one way. Under rule 2 you're stuck - you better clean your room if you want a cookie, because there's no other option.
I agree that it disallows other options, but that's the point--precision. In my world (cs/math), saying that iff is hostile is like saying that 5 is hostile. :-)
Comments 14
Reply
For example (to borrow from vampyrecat), imagine two different rules:
1. If you clean your room you get a cookie.
2. If and only if you clean your room you get a cookie.
Under rule 1 there might be other ways to get a cookie, but we know this is one way. Under rule 2 you're stuck - you better clean your room if you want a cookie, because there's no other option.
Reply
Reply
Reply
"If and only if" means that certain things absolutely _must_ happen for there to be a certain outcome. "If" doesn't have that limitation.
It's a certain amount of emphasis, practically.
Of course, Wikipedia says it better than I can.
Reply
If x=30 then you get a cookie.
If x=40 then you also get a cookie.
If and only if y=40 you get a pie.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
but in my world (as our pal cranky well knows), it's all about tones. i appreciate having hostile linguistic choices available myself...
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment