The following sentence is the subject of a dispute:
"The father may claim all of the children in 2002."
Can anyone provide the meaning of this sentence based only on it’s grammatical structure (word types, parts of speech)? You wouldn’t believe how many learned attorneys have messed this up!
That is a logical and intelligent assumption, however, it may be an assumption that leads down a wrong path linguistically. Your assumption does lead to a very good question: How would knowing if the disputed sentence is related to taxes change its grammatical meaning?
[quote author=Russell_Wade link=board=grammar;num=1035421160;start=0#0 date=10/23/02 at 20:59:20]The following sentence is the subject of a dispute:
"The father may claim all of the children in 2002."
Can anyone provide the meaning of this sentence based only on it’s grammatical structure (word types, parts of speech)? You wouldn’t believe how many learned attorneys have messed this up!
Since lawyers arer involved, based on the verb phrase "may claim" I’d say a tax deduction or a divorce custody agreement or maybe a college financial aid application.
Alas.. sigh.. all likely and close to true, and good eye concerning the lawyer-babel, but what do the rules of grammar say about the sentences meaning? that is, beyond the lawyer-babel?
may make an unspecified ‘claim’ (perhaps custody?)...
to ‘all of the children’: this is less specific; if they were his children then it should read ‘his children’...
this, combined with ‘in 2002’ begs the question that one man may claim all children born in 2002, or else all children alive in 2002. Either way, a monumental task for one man!
It is not a very well written sentence. Does it appear by itself, or is there a context?
O.K., it is clear that I have to put this in some context or the guessing will produce logical errors.
It is indeed a tax exemption claiming issue, where the father at signing believed the agreement allowed him to enter the kids on his 2002 tax return form for the tax year 2001, but after agreement signing, the mother said this wasn’t so. Instead, she argues the disputed sentence means the father will enter the exemptions on his 2003 tax return for the tax year 2002.
Now, forgetting about contracts, or laws, or taxes, or other verbiage, or the libidinal prowness of the father… who, I respectfully ask, is correct according to the rules of grammar?
I don’t think grammar helps us decide.
The existence of the children allows a tax claim during the course of one year (with reference to that year’s income), but that claim is recorded on paper, and formally made, the following year. The word "claim" could therefore equally plausibly apply to the year in which the claim was allowed, or the year in which the claim was made.
Unless the word "claim" is elsewhere defined, I think this one could run forever ...
[quote author=tamisaac link=board=grammar;num=1035421160;start=0#8 date=10/24/02 at 16:31:07]"The father may claim [all the children in 2002] ((in the year 2003))."
Or "The father may claim [all the children] in 2002."
The English grammar is ambiguous. But perhaps legal grammar (such as it is) stipulates a particular position for such qualifying phrases?
[quote author=tamisaac link=board=grammar;num=1035421160;start=0#8 date=10/24/02 at 16:31:07]... were the children had by the father in 2002 ...
Another ambiguity: you’ve obviously taken this to mean children born in that year, while I took it to mean children living in that year. (Presumably some other sentence we’re not seeing would make that one clear, though.)
[quote author=granthutchison link=board=grammar;num=1035421160;start=0#9 date=10/24/02 at 17:01:56]
Or "The father may claim [all the children] in 2002."
The English grammar is ambiguous. But perhaps legal grammar (such as it is) stipulates a particular position for such qualifying phrases?
Yes, you said it better.
Another ambiguity: you’ve obviously taken this to mean children born in that year, while I took it to mean children living in that year. (Presumably some other sentence we’re not seeing would make that one clear, though.)
Grant
Dear me, I actually meant "had" as in "had in custody"—whether born or already living, the father was in possession.
Since it is not specified whether it is calendar year 2002 ( filing for tax year 2001), or tax year 2002 (for filing in calendar year 2003), the question is up in the air. The grammar in and of itself gives us no indication. Unless a reference is made elsewhere in the document that "year" refers to tax year or calendar year, or unless "year" can be classified as a "term of art" and given a particular meaning (i. e., tax or calendar year), it will most likely be up to a judge to decide, based upon a reading of the total document or a judicial coin flip. I’m sure if you ask six lawyers about it you’ll get at least 12 or 18 opinions.
Some lawyer (or lawyers) should be skewered over this, most likely the wife’s, since she’s the one complaining.
Just look at how placement of a comma has engendered so much discussion on the Second Amemdment to the U. S. Constitution.
All very interesting. tamisaac hit it right concerning my motives as far as "setting up" and the "prepositional phrase "in 2002"", with "placement" being a good observation, but only a minor concern. Also, I did say that this was a tax exemption issue, and with respect to years involved, in my response to Linnet (and as iterated (good lawyer term) by Stargzer… however, contrary to the numerous voiced concerns about ambiguity (a true legal concern, and one which will be posed by the opposition), I will contend that; based solely on the rules of grammar, the father is correct. I will say that no ambiguity exists whatsoever. So I am asking, respectfully, how can I make such a statement?
[quote author=tamisaac link=board=grammar;num=1035421160;start=0#10 date=10/24/02 at 17:09:06]Dear me, I actually meant "had" as in "had in custody"—whether born or already living, the father was in possession.
Yes, sorry, that possibility occurred to me after I posted. But the ambiguity is there, isn’t it?
"How many children did you have in 2001?"
"Well, we had the twins in 2001, so we had one child at the beginning of the year and three at the end."
I believe Grant, you have stated one form of the two possible forms of fundamentally, logical errors that will dispose this case in my favor, and which I will have to argue against. Thank you for this.
Contract law insists that any clause should have only one reasonable meaning to avoid the situation of ambiguity and disputes. My going in premise remains the same; the sentence: "The father may claim all of the children in 2002.", is entirely unambiguous.
The first logical error is attributing the purpose of the sentence as assigning attributes to, and/or qualifying, the noun "children". Now I’ve got to figure out how to deal with the second error.
