A guest post by Brass:
In an earlier post on Look To Windward Adriaan observed:
Take i.e. the silly word “protest” (even in the Oxford Dictionary you cannot find the meaning the rules book uses), has the inventor of that word ever thought what that people has in mind reading this word in different countries?
Firstly, all rules, in whatever language need to make common words in the language have special meanings by using definitions. I don't see how that is a problem, or how any problem there is, is a result of the rules being drafted in English.
The rules define 'protest' as 'an allegation made under rule 61.2 … that a boat has broken a rule'. The rules also use 'protest' in italics to mean:
- The written down form of the allegation; and
- All of the papers, other things, times, and processes which the rules require to be complied with for the protest committee to decide validity (rule 63.5), and
- The thing that a Protest Committee decides (rule 63.7)
The rules also use 'protest' in other than the defined way (without italics) with the following meanings:
- (verb) to make a protest (rule 43.1(c), 60.1,)
- (abstract noun) the making of a protest (rule 44.3(a))
- A word that must be hailed (rule 61.1(a))
- A label for a Committee involved with protests or requests for redress (rule 88.2(b), rule 90)
- A label for a hearing by a Protest Committee to consider a protest or request for redress (rule 63.1)
When I lay it out like this, it is obvious that the rules make the word 'protest' do a lot of different work, but does it cause any real problem?
Would the problem be solved by drafting the rule in any other language?