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?
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.)