Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2019 December 19

= December 19 =

Isn't something wrong with this clause from a statute?
19. Submission of appeals.—Every appeal shall be submitted to the authority which made the order appealed against: Provided that if such authority is not the head of the office in which the appellant may be serving, or if he is not in service, the head of the office in which he was last serving, or is not subordinate to the head of such office, the appeal shall be submitted to the head of such office who shall forward it forthwith to the said authority; Source: https://archive.org/stream/in.gazette.central.w.1961-12-23.86113/86113_djvu.txt I just fail to understand the meaning or purpose of the italicized part. Can somebody help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4073:49B:ADDD:C907:F41:EE16:64B1 (talk) 09:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * My understanding is: Assume authority is A and appellant works (or last worked) for B. If A is not B and A is not subordinate to B, the appeal must be submitted to B, who will forward it to A. Jmar67 (talk) 11:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

That's clear. But the sentence doesn't look grammatically and syntactically intact. Aren't the italicized parts fragments that don't go with the rest? The funny thing is that the same repeats in many unconnected statutes belonging to various state governments in India. Can somebody check its grammar and make heads or tails out of it? --2409:4073:49B:ADDD:C907:F41:EE16:64B1 (talk) 13:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There's a few too many "or"s and "he is" there. I think we can better parse it as follows:
 * Provided that if such authority is not
 * the head of the office in which the appellant may be serving
 * not in service
 * the head of the office in which he was last serving
 * subordinate to the head of such office
 * the appeal shall be submitted to the head of such office who shall forward it forthwith to the said authority
 * That is, there are four conditions which invalidate the submission of the appeal, and the four bullets above are those four conditions. I would rewrite it in a way that makes such conditions more clear. -- Jayron 32 15:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@Jayron, I guess you had the conditions wrong in a few places. The condition of not being in service is not about the authority but about the appellant. The way you put it also involves double negative. The intervening "if he is not in service" shuts down the conditional part for the ensuing clause. That is, you cannot construe it as "Provided that if such authority is not... the head of the office in which he was last serving". That leaves unconnected fragments inside the sentence. I guess the clause was trying to say that if the appellant is not in service now, he should be appealing to the head of the office in which he last worked but something went awry and the statement remains in limbo.--2409:4073:49B:ADDD:C907:F41:EE16:64B1 (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * It took me a while to figure out, but the indicated clause does make sense. The first "or" depends on whether the appellent is in service or not.  However, I think the next "or" should be "and".  I read it as:
 * ...if such authority
 * (1) is not
 * (a) the head of the office in which the appellant may be serving,
 * or if he [the appellant] is not in service, [then]
 * (b) the head of the office in which he was last serving,
 * or [rather, and]
 * (2) is not subordinate to the head of such office,...
 * --142.112.159.101 (talk) 18:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to the above parsing, I guess I am closing in on an explication :).2409:4073:49B:ADDD:C907:F41:EE16:64B1 (talk) 19:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Would be clear(er) if "or if he is not in service, the head of the office in which he was last serving", were set off by parentheses or dashes rather than commas. Jmar67 (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * See Dick's comment, about halfway down page 81. Mathglot (talk) 12:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)