Discuss AFDD in 18th 2nd Amendment in the Electrical Wiring, Theories and Regulations area at ElectriciansForums.net

Welcome to ElectriciansForums.net - The American Electrical Advice Forum
Head straight to the main forums to chat by click here:   American Electrical Advice Forum

Status
Not open for further replies.
Page 18, in part:

Verbal forms used in BS7671
Implication
Verbal form
Typical context
RequirementShallNormative element
RecommendationShouldInformative element
It's not as though discussion should be necessary. A quick glance in any dictionary makes clear the meaning of this word.
 
It's not as though discussion should be necessary. A quick glance in any dictionary makes clear the meaning of this word.
Yes, like when a judge sentences someone and says “You shall go to prison for 10 years”

I don't think the defendant is allowed to walk away 🤣
 
I'm sorry, but there is no ambiguity where the meaning of shall is concerned

It is a statement 'You shall do this', rather than a question 'shall we do this? '.

The wording clearly states what is to be done and doesn't ask for opinion.
Definition of shall:
"Shall" is a modal verb used to indicate future action. It is most commonly used in sentences with "I" or "we," and is often found in suggestions, such as "Shall we go?" "Shall" is also frequently used in promises or voluntary actions.

There is a difference between shall and must. If they want to change the definitions of words from dictionaries then they have to state what their words mean. Page 18? If there is an absence of them not supplying a definition for their changed meanings of words, the dictionary meanings are what we go by. Must is well .... must. We all know what that means. No ambiguity. Anything else besides must, does not have to be done.

421.1.7 says: "AFDD"..."shall be provided".

Shall is clearly not must. In short, with must you have to do it. Maybe page 18 clears the air. People need to know if they have to or it is optional.
 
It's not as though discussion should be necessary. A quick glance in any dictionary makes clear the meaning of this word.
Thanks. Getting clearer. But still some grey here....

Definition of normative:

1 : of, relating to, or determining norms or standards normative tests.
2 : conforming to or based on norms normative behaviour normative judgments.

Note it says: behaviour.
Like it was normal behaviour for electricians to fit RCDs before they were mandatory. So, if it is normal for everyone to fit RCDs you follow on. It does not mean you must fit an RCD.
I know people who do not conform to normal behaviour, but it is not illegal to do so. And no one stops them.
 
Definition of shall:
"Shall" is a modal verb used to indicate future action. It is most commonly used in sentences with "I" or "we," and is often found in suggestions, such as "Shall we go?" "Shall" is also frequently used in promises or voluntary actions.

There is a difference between shall and must. If they want to change the definitions of words from dictionaries then they have to state what their words mean. Page 18? If there is an absence of them not supplying a definition for their changed meanings of words, the dictionary meanings are what we go by. Must is well .... must. We all know what that means. No ambiguity. Anything else besides must, does not have to be done.

421.1.7 says: "AFDD"..."shall be provided".

Shall is clearly not must. In short, with must you have to do it. Maybe page 18 clears the air. People need to know if they have to or it is optional.

When used as an auxiliary verb, shall, according to Webster's Online Dictionary, “denotes a requirement that is mandatory whenever the criterion for conformance with the specification requires that there be no deviation” (2). This word implies obligation and is traditionally used by laws and regulations.
 
Definition of shall:
"Shall" is a modal verb used to indicate future action. It is most commonly used in sentences with "I" or "we," and is often found in suggestions, such as "Shall we go?" "Shall" is also frequently used in promises or voluntary actions.

There is a difference between shall and must. If they want to change the definitions of words from dictionaries then they have to state what their words mean. Page 18? If there is an absence of them not supplying a definition for their changed meanings of words, the dictionary meanings are what we go by. Must is well .... must. We all know what that means. No ambiguity. Anything else besides must, does not have to be done.

421.1.7 says: "AFDD"..."shall be provided".

Shall is clearly not must. In short, with must you have to do it. Maybe page 18 clears the air. People need to know if they have to or it is optional.

They are not changing the definitions of words, you are using the wrong definition for the context. Words have more than one meaning and which one applies is based on context.
In the context of an official document, such as a British standard you apply the legal definition:

"Shall is an imperative command, usually indicating that certain actions are mandatory, and not permissive. This contrasts with the word “may,” which is generally used to indicate a permissive provision, ordinarily implying some degree of discretion."

The language used in BS7671 is in accordance with the rules set out by BSI for all British standards.

And as for your point about providing a definition, they have, on page 18, someone has even copied the relevant part and posted it on here for you!
 
Anyways, regardless of common usages of words, BS7671 contains explicit meanings behind the forms of verbal expression it employs, and it is these meanings that we must, shall, adhere to.😜
 
Definition of shall:
"Shall" is a modal verb used to indicate future action. It is most commonly used in sentences with "I" or "we," and is often found in suggestions, such as "Shall we go?" "Shall" is also frequently used in promises or voluntary actions.

There is a difference between shall and must. If they want to change the definitions of words from dictionaries then they have to state what their words mean. Page 18? If there is an absence of them not supplying a definition for their changed meanings of words, the dictionary meanings are what we go by. Must is well .... must. We all know what that means. No ambiguity. Anything else besides must, does not have to be done.

421.1.7 says: "AFDD"..."shall be provided".

Shall is clearly not must. In short, with must you have to do it. Maybe page 18 clears the air. People need to know if they have to or it is optional.
You've made my point here. In any sentence, not ending with a question mark, the word tells you what you will do.

When used ask a question it is suggestive of what you might do.

The regs don't suffix sentences containing shall with a question mark.
 
Page 18, in part:

Verbal forms used in BS7671
Implication
Verbal form
Typical context
RequirementShallNormative element
RecommendationShouldInformative element
I can see why they had to put in their own definition. The regs were written over decades by many people, using different words.
They are not changing the definitions of words, you are using the wrong definition for the context.
They are not using the correct words. So much they have to put in definitions. If I was writing it, and I have done tech' writing, I would use the word must not shall, which has no ambiguity.
 
I can see why they had to put in their own definition. The regs were written over decades by many people, using different words.

They are not using the correct words. So much they have to put in definitions. If I was writing it, and I have done tech' writing, I would use the word must not shall, which has no ambiguity.

Shall, “denotes a requirement that is mandatory whenever the criterion for conformance with the specification requires that there be no deviation”

Shall, this word implies obligation and is traditionally used by laws and regulations.


Churchill’s dicta “We SHALL fight on the beaches”

You SHALL be taken to the place from whence you came, and from there be taken to a place of execution. You shall be hung by the neck until the body be dead, like this thread should be. :)

You could always write to the IET expressing your concerns.

A bit pointless though as that concern has already been clarified by page 18.
 
Last edited:
The regs date back many, many, decades, with some words in the regs being there before any of us were born. Thanks for highlighting Churchill. He used words in vogue at the time. Words can be trendy, or the thing to write at the time. The French always say the English never say what they really mean. We also try to be polite by not being direct and to the point, circumnavigating around. We tend, or tended, to think being direct was rude. The French are right. Look at American writings, there is much less ambiguity. Believe me, I have poured through some US regs. Short and sharp.

If something must be done, I always wrote must. Why? Because I had a few misinterpret what I wrote once, then after tried never to make that mistake again. The Charge of the Light Brigade was a screw up because of poor writing that was misinterpreted.
 
Last edited:
You could always write to the IET expressing your concerns.

A bit pointless though as that concern has already been clarified by page 18.
I do not think it is pointless. They are still using ambiguity to the point they need a definition. They are using legacy writing. They can keep the definition of course as most of the regs were written way back. But future writings must be direct and clear and unambiguous.
 
I do not think it is pointless. They are still using ambiguity to the point they need a definition. They are using legacy writing. They can keep the definition of course as most of the regs were written way back. But future writings must be direct and clear and unambiguous.
In light of this conversation, and a recently posted video of a similar conversation, I think you may have a valid point.

While I've read many debates over regulations, it never occurred to me that electricians would argue over the meaning of a word for which clear definition exists.
 
I do not think it is pointless. They are still using ambiguity to the point they need a definition. They are using legacy writing. They can keep the definition of course as most of the regs were written way back. But future writings must be direct and clear and unambiguous.
It is pointless in this particular instance as clearly it has been addressed as already stated.

I agree that future writings SHALL be direct, clear, and unambiguous.
 
it never occurred to me that electricians would argue over the meaning of a word for which clear definition exists.
Only of you read page 18. This came about because of the ambiguity of whether AFDDs must or not be fitted in certain situations.
 
Yes it MUST be.
Must we go to those lengths?

When must is used as a question it becomes optional, similarly to shall.
Only of you read page 18. This came about because of the ambiguity of whether AFDDs must or not be fitted in certain situations.
Page 18 only becomes relevant if one doesn't understand the meaning of 'shall'.

If someone doesn't understand the meaning of 'must' they'd find themselves in the same situation.

Best way to clear up any ambiguity, if someone isn't sure what a word means, is to look it up in a dictionary. A tried and tested method that precludes any argument.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Reply to AFDD in 18th 2nd Amendment in the Electrical Wiring, Theories and Regulations area at ElectriciansForums.net

OFFICIAL SPONSORS

Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Electrician Courses Green Electrical Goods PCB Way Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Pushfit Wire Connectors Electric Underfloor Heating Electrician Courses
These Official Forum Sponsors May Provide Discounts to Regular Forum Members - If you would like to sponsor us then CLICK HERE and post a thread with who you are, and we'll send you some stats etc
This website was designed, optimised and is hosted by Untold Media. Operating under the name Untold Media since 2001.
Back
Top
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website. For the best site experience please disable your AdBlocker.

I've Disabled AdBlock