Quote Originally Posted by Trafalgar View Post
True, but a legal document would be written very differently. There would be a definitions section that gives specific meanings to words like hold, wear, and wield. Rules would be more specific about applicability. Exceptions to rules would be clearly stated, not requiring the specific vs general interpretation.

The rule books would also be a pain to read and probably 5 times as long. With no pictures.
Well, having read legal documents (and my dad's a lawyer)...not really. Laws (and contracts) have things like "terms of art" which aren't defined anywhere in them but everyone understands to have particular meanings. Which usually are completely unrelated to (or only distantly related to) their facial meanings. Most of the seemingly "detailed and clear" parts are actually just cruft, hanging on there because someone wrote that in a previous contract and a judge relied on it. There're whole libraries of canons of construction--rules on how to read legal rules. And they're contentious. Basically, legal interpretation is nowhere near as word-based and literalistic as people make it out to be. The tricks people are pulling in these (and similar) threads would get you sanctioned (punished) for making frivolous arguments. The whole "magic words" idea (that if it doesn't say particular words, or says particular other words, then the judge is helpless and must rule for you) that pervades RAW-think is the same as pervades a lot of fringe legal movements. That usually end up with serious jail time (or at least being held in contempt of court). Courts are supposed to rule based on meaning and intent.

For example, one defining characteristic of an enforceable contract is a meeting of the minds. That is, a shared understanding of the duties, obligations, and compensations. So hiding something in the fine print, hoping the other party doesn't see it, then pouncing on it is a good way to get that clause (or the whole contract) thrown out as unenforceable due to there not being a meeting of the minds.

The closest you get to what you're talking about are computer languages, where the computer isn't very good with ambiguity so everything has to be clearly defined.

Ambiguity is a natural, inevitable part of human language. You can't do away with it.