Behind the scenes of every report, a lot of time is spent getting it ready. After the draft is finished at least one person peer reviews it. It then goes to our internal team of dedicated editors who apply our house style, correct and normalise spellings (US English vs English) and of course correct grammar. Even then, there are discussions – to my British ear, some US grammar just sounds plain wrong, but I trust them. Especially as my 1970s schooling was in the era of “let the child be creative”, which broadly meant I wasn’t taught grammar or spelling. That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it! I’m not sure whether the fact I now write for a living is proof of the approach or ironic, but probably a mix of both.
Even then, mistakes still happen. (To be clear, the editors haven’t check this post so all the mistakes are my own!).
Grammar really does matter though, and it has very strict rules. The discussions about using Oxford commas and em-dashes as a proof of the use of AI is seen as it learning the rules rather than being taught grammar.
This all comes to mind given the recent ruling on the ongoing saga of Durbin interchange rates.
This blog isn’t long enough to write about all the twists and turns, and story so far. To summarise this ruling in simple terms, the focus was on how the Durbin Amendment’s restriction on including certain costs in calculating debit card interchange fees. Retailers say they include things that aren’t costs, and are therefore too high; the banks and card schemes claim the opposite, and point to the wording of the amendment.
The statute says: “other costs incurred by an issuer which are not specific to a particular electronic debit transaction, which costs shall not be considered…” .
The challenge lies in the first use of “which” and the absence of a comma before it.
Many writers – including myself – have a well-thumbed copy of “The Elements of Style” by Strunk and White on their bookshelves. It states descriptive clauses are set off by commas, while restrictive clauses are not. A restrictive clause limits the subject, while a descriptive clause simply adds information.
The heart of the matter then is that the clause clearly does not have a preceding comma before the “which”. This means it is not clear as to whether the regulators meant to narrowly define “other costs” or simply describe them in passing. The court noted that this wasn’t the only example in the Statue, to the point that the interpretation of intent was simply impossible. And as a result, that the clause should be read as only the most narrow of costs (authorization, clearance and settlement costs only).
Judge Traynor went on to criticize the Durbin Amendment as confusing and not particularly well written.
“When one wonders if studying grammar and English’s oddities is worthwhile, this case answers with a resounding ‘yes,’” he wrote. “It exemplifies how precise grammar and syntax might have avoided over a decade of legal battles.”
I mentioned earlier my US vs English grammar troubles as to my eye the word “which” is as bigger a culprit as the missing comma. A “simple” “that includes” would have been even clearer, but what would I know!
I’m reminded of the initial draft of PSD1. As a Europe wide regulation, it got translated it is worked on English but then gets translated into the other official languages. The final version had two perceived flaws. First, each version had different numbers of paragraphs. The second is more subtle – the use of the word may. This was interpreted in various ways, including you have permission to do this, permission but it is optional, and you shall do this.
Payments is a very technical business where details matter. And that extends to the regulation around it. That missing coma may end up making billions of dollars of difference – and in the end, that’s likely to impact the consumer most.
