Is the statement "For the exclusive use of ABC Company only" incorrect because exclusive implies only? Would leaving off the word "only" be a more structurally sound statement?
2006-12-19 04:13:39 · 11 answers · asked by Liesl W 2 in Education & Reference ➔ Words & Wordplay
Legal copy is very meticulous and you must have an understanding of the terms contained therein. That's why a contract looks like gibberish. If you forget what the common use of "exclusive rights" is then you will begin to have a better understanding of why this sentence is constructed the way that it is.
"Exclusive rights" is refering to the ownership of intellectual property (in this case, the television shows themselves). In an exclusive rights situation, the owner of these rights has broad control over things like derivitive works (anything new based off the original show), copying of the original material, re-broadcast of the works, and distribution.
Other parties (affiliates like your local ABC station) are granted "limited use" rights to broadcast the property but not allowed to redistribute it, sell it, make other shows based off it, etc. ABC Parent Company retains all of those powers.
It has nothing to do with being emphatic or who in the parent company has acces to these privledges...
Once you realize "exclusive use" is a legal term with a specific set of legal rights - and there are other terms that deal with ownership (like "limited use" or "fair use"), you see why "only" was added to the end.
It basically translates to: "ABC Parent company is the only one who can sell, copy, distribute, or modify this program even though you may have acces to it (like on the internet) or have been given a limited permission to air it."
Hope this helps.
2006-12-19 11:35:58 · answer #1 · answered by Corin R 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Grammatically speaking exclusive-only is redundant, but practically makes your statement more emphatic, are you putting this sign in an English classroom or in the company's restroom? Right there you have your answer.
2006-12-19 04:21:01 · answer #2 · answered by elcabula2002 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Normally, yes. Technically this is wrong, but it's worded that way because of the legality of it. Exclusive use refers to those in the company that have authorization. That way an intern couldn't use the stuff just because he works there. It may as well read:
For the use of authorized personel only.
That would work a little better.
2006-12-19 04:17:27 · answer #3 · answered by uncletoon2005 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
This statement can be written as “Exclusively for ABC Company” or “It is exclusively for ABC Company”.
2006-12-19 04:32:26 · answer #4 · answered by uma h 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your tried "analogy" doesn't artwork, because you're not any further "omniscient." Being "fairly particular" is merely an suggested wager, no longer absolute information -- it is what "omniscience" is. it is undemanding: in the adventure that your claimed god is omniscient, then it truly is acquainted with each and everything all of us will ever do or opt for. merely positioned, you as a human can't opt for some thing that your god doesn't already recognize you'll opt for. you may opt for as he's acquainted with you'll -- so in result you do not have any determination. it isn't feasible that you'll do some thing that he doesn't already recognize you'll do. for this reason there isn't any such element as "free will," in spite of the undeniable fact that you may imagine you've it, it truly is in effortless words an phantasm -- because you won't be able to actual opt for, you may do as this god is acquainted with you'll do. on the different hand, in case you may opt for some thing this god does no longer recognize you'll opt for -- in case you may "wonder" this god -- then the god isn't omniscient. It did not recognize what you may opt for, negating omniscience. it is why. Omniscience negates rather "free will," and rather "free will" negates omniscience. both can't both be information. Peace.
2016-11-27 20:08:09 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think this linguistic anomaly is sometimes called a "dog puppy." Another example is "six AM next morning." I'm not sure if it's gramatically incorrect, or if it's just overkill.
2006-12-19 04:24:28 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Only is redundant
2006-12-19 04:22:32 · answer #7 · answered by fancyname 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
no its fine the way it is....ur clarifying the exclusive use
2006-12-19 04:16:26 · answer #8 · answered by flatteredwu 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
wrong on several counts - split infinitive and unnecessary use of 'only'
2006-12-19 04:16:33 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
i dunno...
but it sounds better without the "only"
2006-12-19 04:15:19 · answer #10 · answered by <3 Lilly 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋