Discussion:
meaning of "stipulate"
(too old to reply)
Yurui Liu
2019-11-09 02:25:02 UTC
Permalink
Hi,

Dictionaries generally specify that the object of the verb "stipulate"
is a requirement:

For example, Oxford online has the following definition:

Demand or specify (a requirement), typically as part of an agreement.

But consider the following:

However, Tennessee law stipulates that it is illegal for teachers to
strike or they could face loss of tenure or even their job.

Here, the that-clause does not describe a requirement. Is the example
incorrect, or is the definition too narrow?
Horace LaBadie
2019-11-09 04:22:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yurui Liu
Hi,
Dictionaries generally specify that the object of the verb "stipulate"
Demand or specify (a requirement), typically as part of an agreement.
However, Tennessee law stipulates that it is illegal for teachers to
strike or they could face loss of tenure or even their job.
Here, the that-clause does not describe a requirement. Is the example
incorrect, or is the definition too narrow?
In law, one stipulates to facts, agrees to or acknowledges the existence
of something in fact.
Peter T. Daniels
2019-11-09 15:02:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Horace LaBadie
Post by Yurui Liu
Dictionaries generally specify that the object of the verb "stipulate"
Demand or specify (a requirement), typically as part of an agreement.
However, Tennessee law stipulates that it is illegal for teachers to
strike or they could face loss of tenure or even their job.
Here, the that-clause does not describe a requirement. Is the example
incorrect, or is the definition too narrow?
It does: teachers must not go on strike.
Post by Horace LaBadie
In law, one stipulates to facts, agrees to or acknowledges the existence
of something in fact.
("stipulate to" isn't "stipulate")
Tony Cooper
2019-11-09 05:03:33 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 18:25:02 -0800 (PST), Yurui Liu
Post by Yurui Liu
Hi,
Dictionaries generally specify that the object of the verb "stipulate"
Demand or specify (a requirement), typically as part of an agreement.
However, Tennessee law stipulates that it is illegal for teachers to
strike or they could face loss of tenure or even their job.
Here, the that-clause does not describe a requirement. Is the example
incorrect, or is the definition too narrow?
Perhaps you would understand it better if you would think of "to
stipulate" as meaning "to declare". That sentence declares that it is
illegal for teachers to strike. The requirement is to remain within
the law they must not strike.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Eric Walker
2019-11-09 08:03:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yurui Liu
Hi,
Dictionaries generally specify that the object of the verb "stipulate"
Demand or specify (a requirement), typically as part of an agreement.
However, Tennessee law stipulates that it is illegal for teachers to
strike or they could face loss of tenure or even their job.
Here, the that-clause does not describe a requirement. Is the example
incorrect, or is the definition too narrow?
The AHD 5th gives three transitive senses:

1. To specify or agree to as a condition in an agreement: The two firms
stipulated a payment deadline.

2. To agree to (a fact) in order to reduce the scope of the dispute to be
resolved by a court. Used of litigants.

3. To concede for the purposes of argument: "Even if we stipulate that
it's the president's duty to bring any American soldier home who's been
held in captivity, it's perfectly reasonable to ask if this was a deal he
should have made" (Bernard Goldberg).

Number 2 is, I believe, the sense most ordinarily encountered; here,
though, it seems sense 1 is intended, though honestly I think the writer
should have used "states" or "specifies".

(And starting a sentence with "however" remains poor practice.)
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
b***@aol.com
2019-11-09 16:22:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yurui Liu
Hi,
Dictionaries generally specify that the object of the verb "stipulate"
Demand or specify (a requirement), typically as part of an agreement.
However, Tennessee law stipulates that it is illegal for teachers to
strike or they could face loss of tenure or even their job.
Etymologically, the sentence is very awkward as it's the law itself that
defines what is legal or illegal ("legal" is derived from Latin "lex",
which means "law"), so that the sentence amounts to saying "Tennessee
law stipulates that it is out of Tenessee Law for teachers to strike...".
It should be rephrased to e.g. "Tennessee law forbids teachers to
strike...".
Post by Yurui Liu
Here, the that-clause does not describe a requirement. Is the example
incorrect, or is the definition too narrow?
No, "stipulate that" (or "provide that") is just used as an equivalent
of "specify that" in a legal context. Depending on the construction of
the sentence, it may indeed describe a requirement (e.g. "... stipulates
that it be...) or a mere indication (e.g... "... stipulates that it must
be...").
Mark Brader
2019-11-10 08:40:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Yurui Liu
However, Tennessee law stipulates that it is illegal for teachers to
strike or they could face loss of tenure or even their job.
Etymologically, the sentence is very awkward as it's the law itself that
defines what is legal or illegal ("legal" is derived from Latin "lex",
which means "law"), so that the sentence amounts to saying "Tennessee
law stipulates that it is out of Tenessee Law for teachers to strike...".
[1] Even if that was correct, so what?

[2] "Illegal" contains the prefix "in-", which changes to "il-" before
an L, and means "not", not "out of". "Out of the law" would be
"extra-legal" (which is a real word) or "elegal" (which isn't).
Post by b***@aol.com
It should be rephrased to e.g. "Tennessee law forbids teachers to
strike...".
Nonsense. That is an improvement, but only because it's terse, not for
the reason given above.
--
Mark Brader "The worst things may happen, including a program
Toronto that works fine on your computer but crashes
***@vex.net on your customer's machine." -- Dan Pop

My text in this article is in the public domain.
b***@aol.com
2019-11-10 16:50:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Brader
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Yurui Liu
However, Tennessee law stipulates that it is illegal for teachers to
strike or they could face loss of tenure or even their job.
Etymologically, the sentence is very awkward as it's the law itself that
defines what is legal or illegal ("legal" is derived from Latin "lex",
which means "law"), so that the sentence amounts to saying "Tennessee
law stipulates that it is out of Tenessee Law for teachers to strike...".
[1] Even if that was correct, so what?
Guess what: it would be very awkward.
Post by Mark Brader
[2] "Illegal" contains the prefix "in-", which changes to "il-" before
an L, and means "not", not "out of". "Out of the law" would be
"extra-legal" (which is a real word) or "elegal" (which isn't).
I know theses basics on prefixes, thanks, but "out of the law" concretely
means "illegal". Anyway, this groundless quibble is of no relevance to
the point I'm making. (I'm afraid you even missed it.)
Post by Mark Brader
Post by b***@aol.com
It should be rephrased to e.g. "Tennessee law forbids teachers to
strike...".
Nonsense.
Please elaborate, as you haven't demonstrated it is.
Post by Mark Brader
That is an improvement, but only because it's terse, not for
the reason given above.
--
Mark Brader "The worst things may happen, including a program
Toronto that works fine on your computer but crashes
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Peter Moylan
2019-11-10 23:07:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Mark Brader
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Yurui Liu
However, Tennessee law stipulates that it is illegal for teachers to
strike or they could face loss of tenure or even their job.
Etymologically, the sentence is very awkward as it's the law itself that
defines what is legal or illegal ("legal" is derived from Latin "lex",
which means "law"), so that the sentence amounts to saying "Tennessee
law stipulates that it is out of Tenessee Law for teachers to strike...".
[1] Even if that was correct, so what?
Guess what: it would be very awkward.
Post by Mark Brader
[2] "Illegal" contains the prefix "in-", which changes to "il-" before
an L, and means "not", not "out of". "Out of the law" would be
"extra-legal" (which is a real word) or "elegal" (which isn't).
I know theses basics on prefixes, thanks, but "out of the law" concretely
means "illegal". Anyway, this groundless quibble is of no relevance to
the point I'm making. (I'm afraid you even missed it.)
It's relevant because native English speakers will have trouble
understanding your phrasing. They will probably read "out of the law" as
meaning either "a corollary of the law" or "a case not covered by the
law". They will not, I believe, read it as meaning "illegal".
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Lewis
2019-11-11 01:39:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Mark Brader
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Yurui Liu
However, Tennessee law stipulates that it is illegal for teachers to
strike or they could face loss of tenure or even their job.
Etymologically, the sentence is very awkward as it's the law itself that
defines what is legal or illegal ("legal" is derived from Latin "lex",
which means "law"), so that the sentence amounts to saying "Tennessee
law stipulates that it is out of Tenessee Law for teachers to strike...".
[1] Even if that was correct, so what?
Guess what: it would be very awkward.
Post by Mark Brader
[2] "Illegal" contains the prefix "in-", which changes to "il-" before
an L, and means "not", not "out of". "Out of the law" would be
"extra-legal" (which is a real word) or "elegal" (which isn't).
I know theses basics on prefixes, thanks, but "out of the law" concretely
means "illegal". Anyway, this groundless quibble is of no relevance to
the point I'm making. (I'm afraid you even missed it.)
It's relevant because native English speakers will have trouble
understanding your phrasing. They will probably read "out of the law" as
meaning either "a corollary of the law" or "a case not covered by the
law". They will not, I believe, read it as meaning "illegal".
Nope. I happened to be talking to a few friends (well, texting) and
asked them what they thought "out of the law" might mean and they all
agreed on "something from the law" like "out of the box" means something
taken from a box.
--
"I've had a perfectly wonderful evening. But this wasn't it." - Groucho
Marx
b***@aol.com
2019-11-11 04:53:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Mark Brader
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Yurui Liu
However, Tennessee law stipulates that it is illegal for teachers to
strike or they could face loss of tenure or even their job.
Etymologically, the sentence is very awkward as it's the law itself that
defines what is legal or illegal ("legal" is derived from Latin "lex",
which means "law"), so that the sentence amounts to saying "Tennessee
law stipulates that it is out of Tenessee Law for teachers to strike...".
[1] Even if that was correct, so what?
Guess what: it would be very awkward.
Post by Mark Brader
[2] "Illegal" contains the prefix "in-", which changes to "il-" before
an L, and means "not", not "out of". "Out of the law" would be
"extra-legal" (which is a real word) or "elegal" (which isn't).
I know theses basics on prefixes, thanks, but "out of the law" concretely
means "illegal". Anyway, this groundless quibble is of no relevance to
the point I'm making. (I'm afraid you even missed it.)
It's relevant because native English speakers will have trouble
understanding your phrasing. They will probably read "out of the law" as
meaning either "a corollary of the law" or "a case not covered by the
law". They will not, I believe, read it as meaning "illegal".
Nope. I happened to be talking to a few friends (well, texting) and
asked them what they thought "out of the law" might mean and they all
agreed on "something from the law" like "out of the box" means something
taken from a box.
How about "out of law", which is the initial wording I used?
Post by Lewis
--
"I've had a perfectly wonderful evening. But this wasn't it." - Groucho
Marx
b***@aol.com
2019-11-11 18:10:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Lewis
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Mark Brader
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Yurui Liu
However, Tennessee law stipulates that it is illegal for teachers to
strike or they could face loss of tenure or even their job.
Etymologically, the sentence is very awkward as it's the law itself that
defines what is legal or illegal ("legal" is derived from Latin "lex",
which means "law"), so that the sentence amounts to saying "Tennessee
law stipulates that it is out of Tenessee Law for teachers to strike...".
[1] Even if that was correct, so what?
Guess what: it would be very awkward.
Post by Mark Brader
[2] "Illegal" contains the prefix "in-", which changes to "il-" before
an L, and means "not", not "out of". "Out of the law" would be
"extra-legal" (which is a real word) or "elegal" (which isn't).
I know theses basics on prefixes, thanks, but "out of the law" concretely
means "illegal". Anyway, this groundless quibble is of no relevance to
the point I'm making. (I'm afraid you even missed it.)
It's relevant because native English speakers will have trouble
understanding your phrasing. They will probably read "out of the law" as
meaning either "a corollary of the law" or "a case not covered by the
law". They will not, I believe, read it as meaning "illegal".
Nope. I happened to be talking to a few friends (well, texting) and
asked them what they thought "out of the law" might mean and they all
agreed on "something from the law" like "out of the box" means something
taken from a box.
How about "out of law", which is the initial wording I used?
I didn't ask, as I didn't read it that way because that doesn't scan
easily for me. I suspect they would be confused by the absence of an
article.
I see, thanks. I don't know whence exactly came my impression that it
could mean "illegal", but I may have just likened the phrase to the noun
"outlaw".
--
"As God as my witness, I though turkeys could fly," Arthur Carlson, WKRP
in Cincinnati
Eric Walker
2019-11-11 11:49:57 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 09 Nov 2019 08:22:30 -0800, bebercito wrote:

[...]
Post by b***@aol.com
Etymologically, the sentence is very awkward as it's the law itself that
defines what is legal or illegal ("legal" is derived from Latin "lex",
which means "law"), so that the sentence amounts to saying "Tennessee
law stipulates that it is out of Tenessee Law for teachers to
strike...".
[...]

It has often been said that an act or condition that is prohibited by law
is "unlawful", while actions or conditions that do not violate any law
are "lawful". In that pattern, "legal" means associated with or relevant
to laws and legislation: "He is an expert in legal matters." The term
"illegal" would then not mean "unlawful", but rather contrary in some way
or sense to the idea or patterns of legality in general rather than to
some particular provision of law.

It is a distinction that was never fully in play, but it had its uses to
the careful speaker or writer. Today, however, the distinction seems all
but lost.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
b***@aol.com
2019-11-11 16:28:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Walker
[...]
Post by b***@aol.com
Etymologically, the sentence is very awkward as it's the law itself that
defines what is legal or illegal ("legal" is derived from Latin "lex",
which means "law"), so that the sentence amounts to saying "Tennessee
law stipulates that it is out of Tenessee Law for teachers to strike...".
[...]
It has often been said that an act or condition that is prohibited by law
is "unlawful", while actions or conditions that do not violate any law
are "lawful". In that pattern, "legal" means associated with or relevant
to laws and legislation: "He is an expert in legal matters." The term
"illegal" would then not mean "unlawful", but rather contrary in some way
or sense to the idea or patterns of legality in general rather than to
some particular provision of law.
It is a distinction that was never fully in play, but it had its uses to
the careful speaker or writer. Today, however, the distinction seems all
but lost.
I know about the distinction (a similar one exists in French), but in
the sentence at hand, it doesn't seem possible to give "illegal" the
second meaning you mentioned (in substance: teachers striking doesn't
pertain to a general principle of legality), as the end of the sentence,
"or they could face loss of tenure or even their job" clearly rules it
out and clarifies that "illegal" is intended as "unlawful" per your above definition.
Post by Eric Walker
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
b***@aol.com
2019-11-12 15:59:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Eric Walker
[...]
Post by b***@aol.com
Etymologically, the sentence is very awkward as it's the law itself
that defines what is legal or illegal ("legal" is derived from Latin
"lex", which means "law"), so that the sentence amounts to saying
"Tennessee law stipulates that it is out of Tenessee Law for teachers
to strike...".
[...]
It has often been said that an act or condition that is prohibited by
law is "unlawful", while actions or conditions that do not violate any
law are "lawful". In that pattern, "legal" means associated with or
relevant to laws and legislation: "He is an expert in legal matters."
The term "illegal" would then not mean "unlawful", but rather contrary
in some way or sense to the idea or patterns of legality in general
rather than to some particular provision of law.
It is a distinction that was never fully in play, but it had its uses
to the careful speaker or writer. Today, however, the distinction
seems all but lost.
I know about the distinction (a similar one exists in French), but in
the sentence at hand, it doesn't seem possible to give "illegal" the
second meaning you mentioned (in substance: teachers striking doesn't
pertain to a general principle of legality), as the end of the sentence,
"or they could face loss of tenure or even their job" clearly rules it
out and clarifies that "illegal" is intended as "unlawful" per your above definition.
That is correct: the word in the original should have been "unlawful",
not "illegal". The law defines what is lawful and what is unlawful.
That would have made the sentence sound even more tautological.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
Peter Moylan
2019-11-12 16:28:01 UTC
Permalink
That is correct: the word in the original should have been "unlawful",
not "illegal". The law defines what is lawful and what is unlawful.
"Illegal", of course, is a sick bird.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Peter Young
2019-11-12 17:10:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
That is correct: the word in the original should have been "unlawful",
not "illegal". The law defines what is lawful and what is unlawful.
"Illegal", of course, is a sick bird.
I'm sorry, I didn't have a clue. And "innuendo" is an Italian suppository.

Peter.
--
Peter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004.
(US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist) (AUE Hg)
Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired.
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk
Peter Moylan
2019-11-12 17:57:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Young
Post by Peter Moylan
That is correct: the word in the original should have been "unlawful",
not "illegal". The law defines what is lawful and what is unlawful.
"Illegal", of course, is a sick bird.
I'm sorry, I didn't have a clue. And "innuendo" is an Italian suppository.
Naturalmente.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
CDB
2019-11-12 20:09:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Young
Post by Peter Moylan
That is correct: the word in the original should have been
"unlawful", not "illegal". The law defines what is lawful and
what is unlawful.
"Illegal", of course, is a sick bird.
I'm sorry, I didn't have a clue. And "innuendo" is an Italian
suppository.
Naturalmente.
Cool. Supertasters eschew artificial ingredients.
b***@aol.com
2019-11-13 01:25:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
That is correct: the word in the original should have been "unlawful",
not "illegal". The law defines what is lawful and what is unlawful.
"Illegal", of course, is a sick bird.
Quoth he in raptor.
Post by Peter Moylan
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Loading...