I think at least part of the gist is saying that in the “Nuts Order,” the word “nuts” refers to nuts other than peanuts (ground nuts). What I don’t get is the ‘unground’ part. Does that simply mean ‘nuts other than peanuts?’
“Unground” meaning “not having been subject to grinding”.
Whoever wrote the sentence quoted in the OP should be shot.
The plant/product synonymous with Peanuts and their allies is spelled as one word, “groundnuts”. Despite the confusing syntax, one needs to assume that the writer knows that, and would have spelled it “groundnuts” if that weas what was implied. If groundnuts were included in the context, those which are not groundnuts would be called “tree-nuts”.
So the main point of this thread is to say that peanut flour is ground groundnut ?
—Bob and Ray
So spelled by whom and when? The authors of this horrendous piece of wordsmithing were British in the closing days of the Empire.
Kinda reminds me…Bob and Ray (remember them?) had a routine about an important Government Announcement concerning “Groundhog Meat” that was later corrected to “Ground Hogmeat” and maybe then something else.
Like in two posts above yours.
It is not at all easy to understand the intended effect even leaving aside the groundnuts issue. Assuming, as appears to be the intention, that groundnuts (ie peanuts) are excluded from the discussion, then it reads (with a bit of simplification):
“In the relevant Order, the expression “nuts” shall have reference to such nuts as would but for this amending Order not qualify as nuts (unground) by reason of their being nuts (unground).”
This makes no immediate sense because why would something not qualify as being nuts (unground), precisely by reason of being nuts (unground)?
I suspect that what it really should say is:
“In the relevant Order, the expression “nuts” shall have reference to such nuts as would but for this amending Order not qualify as “nuts (unground)” by reason of their being unground nuts.”
I suspect that the original order gave the expression “nuts (unground)” an artificial definition such that it did not in fact encompass all unground nuts. If that’s right, then what the amending order is saying that “nuts” means nuts that are not ground, which do not fall into the definition of “nuts (unground)”.
Needless to say this could be completely wrong because it’s appalling drafting.
It just had to be the EU. Any organisation that can produce legislation like this:
Would have no problem at all with the Groundnut Act.
Your quoted sentence is perfectly clear. The sentence in the OP is not.
ETA: But I expect that with context, it may be. OP, can you link to the source document?
It may be a spoof - after an extensive 10 minute search, I was unable to find the original document.
Many, many years ago, IIRC, this appeared in the Guinness Book of World Records (or some similar book) as ‘most complicated statute’ or some such category. Maybe it is factitious–but I first read about it in the late 70s/early 80s, so it’s not of recent vintage.
Based on web searches it seems to be regularly given as an example of an appalling piece of legal drafting, but the origin and context are never given. I suppose if you really wanted to you could try to track down the order in English records of superseded subordinate legislation, but I think most of us probably have something better to do with our time.
Seeing as this was a piece of colonial english legalese, it was probably deliberately written to be as confusing as possible so that the local administrators could interpret it in what ever way was most profitable to them.
What a great word. Something that is true but seems like it must be fictitious. Or a fib that seems like it has to be true.
. . . in the nuts.
The Guinness Book of World Records used to list the sentence in question under “Most Inexplicable Statute.”
This is a real on from 1944: