 Why can you just say fewer? Because that word in and of itself as a modifier indicates the nature of the word that precedes it. In other words, that it's a word that can be counted. So if something is fewer in number, yeah, duh, because everything that's fewer has a number. So in other words, if you have chairs, then you have one chair, two chair, three chairs. You have fewer chairs, et cetera, et cetera. But if it's water, you can't count water. It's not one water, two waters, three waters. So yeah, in view of the fact that that's typically one that you would also sense because we can see this, because this is the case, you don't always have to say in view of the fact that during the time that, while, for the reason that, because, see, now you're getting there. If conditions are such that, if, yeah, you don't always have to say the whole thing. But now I will point out that if you go through this cognizant of the fact that is actually, there's two words for that. You can't use just one, aware that is what you're. So then you're aware of something. You are aware that something is the case. You could. No, it's not really obviously, because cognition is more the idea of awareness. What you're talking about is that something is blatantly true, for example. By the way, a little writing tip. We were talking in the break about language use and the prudence behind jurisprudence. And one of the things I can tell you as a writer, a reader, and a former editor, translator, et cetera, be very careful with the word obviously in writing. And the reason for this is it's often a no-win situation, because if you say it's obviously and then say something really obvious, it's like you're knowingly wasting the reader's time. But if you say obviously and then say something that's really not at all obvious, it's kind of like you're being snooty and you're trying to make your other party sound stupid. And that doesn't work either. There is, however, one case where you can really use obviously, and that comes in very handily for you folks. And that is when you wish to acknowledge a clear and distinct counterargument to whatever you're saying, then you do see that, that you say obviously. The first objection that could be put up against this would be to state this. OK. So Congress of the fact that has the capacity of is simply, if something has the capacity of, then it can't, then it is. Then it can do something. So then you use a modal phrase. And finally, in order two, it's often simply two. You often don't use in order. But now comes the question. With the exception of things like fewer in number, and I would say despite the fact that which I just find an ugly kind of extraneous phrase in most cases, many of these things are used and can be used. But then what are you doing? It's what we said before. You're slowing down the reader with purpose. You should use the longer phrase when your whole point is, you want to draw the reader to a halt a little bit. When you want to slow them down, you want to have them thinking about something, pondering it more than you want them to be skimming through it. But in most other cases, so I'm thinking 75% of cases, you want the shorter word, clarity, brevity, and variety. Keep in mind, so there you go. Words have hidden meanings. We just talked about this denotation and connotation. So as I said, sometimes the meaning of the word is literally one thing. But it's value. Its emotional value is something very, very different. If you look at this, then you can think about words like cheap versus inexpensive, for example. If it's an inexpensive hotel, you've got a good deal. If it's a cheap hotel, you shouldn't be paying a lot of money. In the one case, it's high value, low cost. In the other case, it's low value, low cost. And that's implicit in what you're saying. Then the lexicon also has all these wonderful words from the law, your own field. Then you get subpoena, felony, estoppel, injunction, tort, fiduciary, surety, tenure. But you also have a whole bunch of others. What else is there? There is the Latin. And now I'm going to tell you something that's going to be highly disillusioning. There are Latinate phrases in pretty much all European legal traditions. But now comes the fun part. They're not all the same. One of the ones that I discovered and found very interesting was the fact that while both languages recognize both forms, in Dutch, when you're talking about the principle of that you can't reverse legislate against crime. So in other words, you can't have acts committed, law, and then punishment. That's called nulapuna. From nulapuna, sena, privet, lage, and finale, if I remember my Latin from law correctly. Something like that. The same phrase is in American law as well. But they almost never use it. Generally, they just use the more generic term. They talk about ex post facto laws, which is actually in Dutch reserved for pretty much everything that is in criminal law. So interesting little switching up. You also have terms that are more common in one than in the other. For example, in English law, in re is used, and Swedish in re is often used way more commonly than in, for example, the Netherlands, the only other system that I can compare it with. But for example, I've noticed that terms like Mutates from Thomas is used much more frequently by Dutch speakers, even writing in English than by English speakers writing in English, but this one by the same handle. So you have all these nice terms, but they're not necessarily always going to be the same or used with the same frequency. So you have that as well. Then you start getting the really good stuff. Indeed, what did we talk about? Made up terms, the words that come from the literature. Look at the ones that you have in your own. The idiom of the law itself can be quite colorful. An escape clause, run with the land with malice of forethought, the clean hands doctrine, clear and present danger, deep rock doctrine, fruit of the poisonous tree. I've always loved that one. Front and load program and yellow dog contracts. By the way, that's a really obscure one. Does anyone have a clue as to what a yellow dog contract is? It's a contract that says you cannot join a labor union. Well, we don't have dogs. And it's illegal in those places. But those in the United States traditionally are called yellow dog contracts. Do not ask me why. That being the case, where does that leave us? And where does that lead us as we roll towards our last coffee break of the day? Well, what did I find in your field? Lexicon of fiscal state aid. Externalities is a word you definitely want to keep abreast of, especially because externalities can mean a lot of different things. Again, there's the multiple levels of meaning here. Externalities and economics are different from externalities in the rest of the world or within other fields of law, et cetera. So keep that in mind. Spillover effects is a great term in the law. It has a very specific meaning. Imperfect information was one. Look at that set of antonyms. Benefits versus distortions. In some of my other classes, I often do a whole thing on opposites and antonyms. I talk about things like you have a word like call. There's like 10 different antonyms for the word call, depending on what you think call means. If you think calm has to do with nerves, then you'd say stressed. If you think calm has to do with weather, you'd say stormy. If you think calm has to do with water, you'd say troubled. Benefits can have numerous different. In this case, I found a set of antonyms. Benefits versus distortions. Mitigate and mitigation, ex ante versus ex post. Discretionary administrative practices. I found that to be incredibly euphemistic. It sounds to me like what you're saying is, well, they have a choice to do something wrong. And they're gonna do it. No, I actually know, I saw what it was meant to be, but it has a very kind of connotative value. So I thought that was interesting. Derogation was another one that I found. There's standstill clause. What's the last one there? Compliance, look at those words. Then as you keep going, what else do you see? Compatibility, enforcement, application, illegality, interest and freedom of procedure. Selectivity versus advantage. That was a weird set. I saw that, I forgot who was talking about that. But I thought that was an interesting way to, in a sense, juxtaposition things, to set them up as an antonyms. Then amortization, that's one of those terms that I always have this idea that at a certain point it starts to mean things that it's not supposed to. I always have a feeling people are using that too often, but okay, as a technical term. But Zoras was also, there, words made up of other words. Zero interest rate mandatory convertible loans. Arms length principle, idiom. BEPS, base erosion and profit shifting, transfer pricing, all of those things are up there. What else did I find? I found more. MAPS, mutual agreement procedures, formulary apportionment, fair and balanced allocation of powers. Keep in mind that's a sneaky one. It is actually an idiomatic phrase because you're using it with a very specific meaning line. Subjective versus objective scopes. Comparable, Z, comparable. Uncontrolled price method. Renumeration, which is a word I put in there because it's infamously gets misspelled when you're typing really fast. It becomes renumeration. Restjudica, judicata. Amicus curie, knowledge paradox, and we taught us from telling this, as I said, these are some of the things that came up that I would say this is definitely a list that you have to have control of, to have control of the material that's being dealt with in this course. But as you add and subtract from the other terms, what you will see is that as you look for, because now here comes the interesting thing, I can give you something as a kind of challenge. Something that might be cool to come back to at a later point is terms of the law. I don't know what these terms mean, generally, at least most of them, in the Latinate terms. But now what I wonder is, could you explain them in English? Something to think about. I'm not gonna give you the answer solution yet, but I have it. So I have good definitions of these terms, like one and two sentence definitions. Think about how you would rephrase, repurpose, or reuse those terms if you were talking to someone who did not know what pro bono was, or estoppel, or how to use sui generi, or use tershi, or any of these terms. Just as an idea, November 17th, when we talk about editing, I'll give you my solutions. Alrighty, now, just to round off our discussion, this first foray into vocabulary, lexicon terminology, I also have some further things that I wanted to point out to you. Some words of wisdom, as it says at the top of the slide, keep in mind, watch out for things like informal words or structures. So in that sense, and this comes back very much to also what was being discussed previously. Previously, watch using, for example, words. So first of all, no contractions in formal writing. I always tell people this to things like, it's always do not, will not, cannot, not, won't, don't, can't, you can't do that. So informal writing, you're supposed to go away from this. Avoid using, I always tell people, avoid using rhetorical questions in argumentative or persuasive writing, not in speaking, in speaking, it's brilliant. But my problem with things like rhetorical questions in writing is that you basically, you're counting on people then taking a pause before they continue reading to actually, before they read your answer, but most people don't do that, so it loses the effect. Let's see, what else avoid idiomatic expressions. So try to avoid things like between the rock in the hard place or any of those kind of things like any sayings or kind of vernacular phrases, things like that. However, do use the idiomatic terms of the trade. So as we said, arms length principle you do use, spillover effect you do use. Those are things that are idiomatic to your trade. So the trip through the poison tree, those are basically terminology. So they're not the same thing. There you see an example of this is being given. So the first one, the president was given a hard time that you would not do, but through the poison tree. As I said, that's the example I gave, that would be permissible. So watch those kind of things as well. What else can I say in terms of register, watch out for certain things. Watch for words like get, as I said, versus receive because those get is too broad a word and too vague in that sense. It's all about indeed receive or whatever specific phrase you need to use at that moment. Just a second, just wanna look something up here. Where was I? Here we go. Also, do not use words such as a lot, thing, kind of, et cetera, but that in a group like this usually speaks for itself. I don't have to really point those out too much. Don't use inflated language. Keep in mind, even in his most sonorous and verbose, Cardozo doesn't lay down claims that can't be substantiated. And you were talking about that before, but that's also true of hyperbolic language. So for example, there are an infinite number of definitions of equality. No, there aren't. There are definitely a finite number of definitions of equality. It's just perhaps a very large number, but it's not an infinite one. But there is, number is, single fact. Oh, that has to do with something I'm gonna come back, I can come back to later. It has to do a thing called a proximity rule. And I'll come back to it. It is, there are a number of definitions. But you understand my problem. But I understand your problem because you're looking for a number, but it actually refers to number of definitions. And that's, it's a tricky one. I said, I can come back to that later. But I definitely see where you're coming from. Try to use, as I said, very few low context vague words. Remember, good and bad in this context always have to be substantiated. So it has to do with, for example, the one that I always give is things like good data. Is why is it good data? It's because it's reliable data. It's a complete data set. It's evidence would be the same thing. It's solid evidence. Why is it solid evidence? Because it's evidence that can withstand scrutiny. It's evidence that has a proper track of provenance. It's evidence that is complete. It's evidence, et cetera, et cetera. Also, use interesting and important sparingly. They usually, what you're talking about is actually something that's perhaps noteworthy, but has some noteworthy value, but is not necessarily particularly fascinating to everyone involved. So in that sense, you have to kind of, what's more important is not so much the value judgment, but logical reasoning. So what you're looking for is not so much that something is of interest or of note, but that it's a necessity. Or that it's, for example, that you're looking and saying, there's a logical cause and effect, that that's what you're trying to get across. Then you would say, then what is noteworthy would be that there's a proper logical connection between something or no proper logical connection between two things. You'd have to back that up. So in this sense, if you look at this, where it says, in some words, of wisdom, you interest and import, it is important and interesting. That's necessary to study employer gender prejudices. I would say it is necessary to study this because that's the point. Is it something that isn't just noteworthy. It's something that's essential to our understanding of the certain thing. That's what's most important. And that can also be a good litmus test for what you put in any writing. Is it really just of interest or is it actually something that needs to be said? Let's see. What else did I wanna say in that respect? However, interestingly and importantly, it can be used as sentence adverbs because you're are indicating what you're talking about in the sense of if you wish to add a commentary about a certain thing, but then again, it should preferably be something that's, for example, counterintuitive. You're saying, I'm noting this because this doesn't follow the norm. And I believe that that makes it noteworthy or of interest or a necessity to know. So this kind of idea. The data shows that something that you wouldn't necessarily predict without that data. And then what else do I have for you? It looks like an eye test, but it is not. Because if you look at the following slides, these aren't meant for projection. These were very much meant for your access. So in other words, a list of words, what have I given you? One, two, three, four lists. But I said, if you look at them on the screen or in like six in a box kind of thing, it's useless. But if you look at them on Blackboard, what you'll see is it's basically building blocks for writing. These are all what you'd call collocations. In other words, lists of words that go together. And this is great because in the past, I've taught courses, for example, in things like creative writing and even fiction writing. And there I always tell people to abjure the cliche, to not use the well-worn path. And in my Cardozen prose, to seek out the original, the enticing, the unique. Here, don't do that. There is no need. Embrace the cliches. Use the phrases we all know and are familiar with. It will make your writing easier. It will make our reading easier. So in that sense, what legal writing, what research writing, what traditional writing all share in common is an embracing of those very, in fact, what seem like cliche phrases are actually just handy building blocks, collocations of words, words that go together nicely and provide the connective fiber that you need in any good text. And I've given you four pages worth of them by all means. Take a look, embrace them and use them. That being said, that's what I have to say for today about vocabulary and lexicon. I hope that it has been of some use. As I said, leaving from the very broad, the lexicon of the language itself down to the specificity of the words you may need and the choices you'll have to make in which ones you need to seek out, which ones you need to use, et cetera. That being said, I'm left with but one task for today and that is I wish to explore the future with you. But the future that I wish to explore is future time and expression in English. A first foring. Now, this is noteworthy because anyone who's done a high school program in English has done three distinct things in English once they get to the later stages. You've dealt with what's called future expression in English. So talking about future time. You've dealt with conditional sentences. So those constructions of the if then construction and you've talked about something called modal verbs. So those are all of those verbs like canned code, will, which, I'll show it in main mic, must, would rather had better need to, ought to, use to, et cetera. However, one of the things that high school teachers don't do and can't do is draw them all together. First of all, they don't have the time and the second reason is they don't really have people in front of them who are gonna do writing at that level where it would make sense for all of these things to be brought together. But here we can indulge in these subtleties of the future condition and mode. I'm gonna start today with the future. We will come back to condition and mode later. But I do wanna say one thing about this. Now, as I said, I can't compare to all of the languages in this group because the one that I'm truly skilled at outside of English is Dutch. But I can tell you that Dutch modal use is illustrative of why English is not considered a strong language grammatically. Because in Dutch, all of these things like canned code, will, would, shall, should, are way more subtle than they are in English. And one of the reasons why is in Dutch, I actually believe this is also true in German, you have what are called chained modals. In other words, in English, if I wish to express any more than one mode, I have to stop and restart my sentence or create a parallel construction or have a whole new sentence. But in Dutch, you have all these great phrases where you can say, oh, oh, uh, hothet mut ik kan evaite. You know, I had to should have known it. I'm talking about it, but it was still actually grammatically correct language. It was a thing of beauty. In English, you do not have this. And again, that's where translation rears its ugly head. If you think in Dutch, or as I said, to some degree in German along those lines and then try to translate, you're gonna be in trouble because there's no counterpart in English. You'll have to go to a completely different type of construction. And this field of German is, I think, even richer than Dutch. Yeah, and what German has is also has you have this wonderful specificity of all the ways of non-violent. Yeah. Well, but do we really... We're showing to the genitives and all those things. Everything changes up as soon as you change that nature of the sentence. That is just brilliant stuff, but hard to learn. I remember that was a tough sledding in high school. Of course, it didn't help that I was the only American in my class. So everyone had a Dutch accent, but I had an American accent. My German teacher thought that was hysterically amusing for some reason, but he was a great guy, so I gave him that one. So the future. Okay, let me ask you a question. Okay, think about this. If I said, I'm going to give you a verb, the verb to meet. To meet, right? Just give me one sentence where you use the verb to meet in a future form. We will meet again. We will meet again. Okay? See? Yeah. We're on the answer. Yeah. We will meet. So we'll meet. That's one. Give me another one. Yeah. No? That's not a future. That's a present perfect. Yeah. I'm going to meet. Going to meet. Thank you. By the way, you're following fantastically the order. So you first gave me the simple future. We'll meet. Then you gave me the planned or intended future. I'm going to meet. Give me another one. We'll be meeting. I am meeting. Very good. And? We'll be meeting. Meeting is the third form. That's what's called the arranged future, which you gave me was the future progressive. So in other words, the future as it takes place will be meeting at a specific moment in the future. So those are already four really good forms. And I'll point something out to you. That is generally where most people kind of stop. But there are two forms that are really useful in the law that you haven't mentioned. What else can you say? How else can you express something in the future? Okay. Now you're thinking modally. So that's a long. That's okay. That's also going to come up, but that's a modally. But very good that you mentioned it. Okay. What about this one? We meet on November 17th. And why can I say that? In this group? Why can I say we meet on November 17th? Because it has been scheduled. Scheduling in the future actually has its own aspect. So we talk about the scheduled future. And finally, there is in essence, which you might want to, it's called the, I term it the mandated future, but you could call it the legal future. We are to meet. And why is that the legal future? Because it's the future that has been determined by mandate, by rule. So basically, if we look at this, if we look at the sheets, what do we see? Okay. First of all, I want to show you something real quick. A review on tents and aspects. Keep this in mind. If you look where it says a quick reminder on tents and aspect, there are two distinct terms when you're talking about time in language. You have the tenses, past, present, future, and you have the different aspects within those tenses. And all of those things are things like the simple present, the present progressive, the present perfect, the past perfect. All of those things are what we call aspect. And for example, and if you look at this, keep in mind simple, simple present and simple past. How does that work? It's everything that is permanent, universal, habitual, unchanging, repetitive, but in the present. So I am a teacher. It's what I do. The law states that you cannot do X without paying Y. Those kind of things. But you cannot do is the thing that's key here. So simple present, paying is the activity that follows its verbal construction. But okay. So permanent, universal, habitual, unchanging. I am a teacher. This is a university. The sky is, well, I was going to say blue, but the sky is there. How about we just keep it at that? It's been changing all day here. I don't know what it's like in your respective communities, but basically the Dutch weather has been Dutch weather. In other words, about every 10 minutes we get a different season. But if it's permanent, unchanging, simple present, if it's the progressive, past progressive, present progressive, then the idea is it's still in the present, but it's about to change. So for example, it's things like if I say, I live in the Hague, that's permanent. That's where I live. I also live in the Hague by the way. But what if I say I'm living in the Hague? Then what am I actually saying? It's about to change. I'm going to move. So you have to watch those kind of things. Yes, ma'am. Oh. Did you have a question? No. Okay. Then, and then of course you also have the present perfect. What are progressives or perfectives? Those are all of those things that start in one timeframe and link to another timeframe. So if you have the past tense, present tense, future tense, if a, if the past is linked to the present, the present is linked to the future, the past is linked to the future through the present, anything like that, that's called a perfective aspect. So the present perfect. I have been a teacher for 27 years. That's saying I started being a teacher in the past, I'm still a teacher in the present. So then I'm using an aspect that links up the two. Those are perfective aspects. So you basically have static aspects, present, simple present, present progressive, and you have dynamic aspects. Those are the perfectives. Where then you're talking about you're looking at this and you're saying I'm linking the past to the present, the present to the future, or moments in the past to other moments in the past. We had been a teacher for 25 years when he won the Nobel Prize. One moment late in the past, he was a teacher, started, 25 years later, still in the past, something else happened. You're connecting those two moments in the past. Had been a teacher, that's the past perfect. And in fact, we often call that the present perfect in the past. So you have this interlude of these perfectives. Now, how does this play out for future time and expression? Well, future time has six static aspects. Those are the things we just discussed. No perfectives there at all, but it has six forms, not two. The present and the past only have two, simple and progressive. What does the future have? It has the simple future, the planned future, the arranged, the present progressive as a future or arranged future, the future progressive. If there's a future simple, there should be a future progressive. Then the simple present as the scheduled future and finally the mandated future. And how does this all play out? Okay, what do you use the simple future for? Well, the simple future is basically what we call neutral use. But what you could call that is the inevitable future. If you wish to express that something by the nature of the passing of time will take place, then you say, will plus infinity. Come next January, I will turn 53. Yeah, I mean, barring anything, yes, ma'am? Oh, barring any untoward circumstance, which we hope will not take place. 53rd birthday is on its way. You can also use this in a modal use, so as a promise. But in terms of time, it's an interesting kind of thing because you also often use, when you're expressing promise, what you're actually talking about is often what we call the immediate future. So the thing is like someone says, I've got a problem, you say, I'll do something about that. Immediate future. I will go into action. Same thing, if someone knocked on that door over there, I would say, stay seated, I'll get it. I will get it, like right now. So I'm going to act in the immediate future on something. But then, if you look on the slide, and your slide is printed in color, which I don't know that yours are, you'll see red letters. And in the red letters, it says prediction based on prior knowledge. What else do we use the future for? The simple future. We use the simple future to talk about things that we believe, that we conclude, that we find will take place in the future because of what we know has already gone on in the past. So in other words, this is how scientific prediction works. You look at what's gone before, and you project into the future. So if a meteorologist looks at the weather, what do they look at? They look at charts, Almanacs, computer programs, those sketchy satellite photos, that they always show you on the news. And I always wonder why, because I'm not a meteorologist. I don't read clouds. I mean, you might as well be showing me an MRI or something, but OK. But the point is, they look and they say, well, tomorrow it will rain, because that's a prior determiner. They're saying, based on what we know, this will happen. But it could be different. Maybe you're using the planned future. And what are you talking about when you do that? The planned future, going 2 plus infinitive, I'm going to meet. That's either plan or intention. So indeed, it's just something in my head. I'm basically using aspect and language to project what I have already come to compose as an idea. Or, and that's a distinct difference, I can also use this to point out that whatever prediction I'm making is based on present knowledge only. I'm not a meteorologist, but I do have eyes in my head. If I look out the window, I'll say, boom, gray sky, clouds, wind. You know what? I think it's going to rain. That's a prediction based solely on what I see in front of me. And I can use language to make that distinction clear. So if you wish to isolate your discussion to current knowledge leading to future prediction, use this. If it's based on historical knowledge and deeper insight, use the simple future. But what else do we have? There's also an arranged future. OK, lawyers, what's the difference between a plan and an arrangement? How many people do you need to make a plan? How many people do you need to make an arrangement? At least two, yeah. So here, you actually see a social construct being encompassed or being, in that sense, what's the word I'm looking for, enshrined, as it were, in grammar. Because if I wish to express that something's a plan, I say, I'm going to do it, but that's all about me. But if I say I am meeting with Carla after class, then you know that I've determined that, and so is she. It's an agreement. So it's basically an arrangement has been made. Usually in the short term, and then you use the present progressive, I am meeting with. Excuse me from Vienna. Sure. To go back to the future once more, simple future and planned future, you gave the example of, in January, I think it was you will turn 53, right? That's for the simple future, yes. Yeah, and wouldn't it be possible to say, in January, you're going to turn 53? Yeah, and I'm going to get back to that. Because I'm giving you all, at the moment, all of the clear definitions as set down in grammar. But the truth is, your question kind of tips my hand, and I'm more than willing to have my hand be tipped at this point. You know what's cool about the future tense and aspect thing? I'm going to teach you all the distinctions, and these distinctions are good. And if you use them properly, it'll come across as wickedly precise, right? But the downside to this is, there's no downside to this, because there's an enormous amount of flexibility here. The truth is, many people just talk about things like the inevitability as a planner intention, or they talk about a meeting they're going to have as a planner intention, or they talk about a planner intention as if it were an arrangement. Most people aren't as precise in their language use as they should be. And that works to your advantage, because that means, as you're trying these things out, you're not going to get caught out. Because the fact is, unless you really make extreme errors, you have a lot of flexibility in using these things. But I will point out, you'd be a subtle user of the language if you said something like, well, as I will turn 53 next year, I'm planning to organize a big party in February. Or I'm arranging to organize a big party in January. Then you'd have something where you'd say, I'm using both terms of the future to express both the inevitability of the one thing and the arrangement of the other. But as they said, most of the world does not work this way. OK, so it really is a useful thing to have, because one of the things I can tell you is, this is a key marker for definitive use of language. And there are a few things that you absolutely have to grasp. And one of them is that, for example, there's flexibility between arrangement, plan, and symbol. But for example, there's no flexibility when it comes to things like mandate. This is to become law on this date. You absolutely have to use that, because that's what you're indicating. It's definitely going to be that law on that date. So in that sense, there are a few that are fairly definitive, but there are also some gray areas, sure. And I can even point something out to you. If you give me one moment to move forward through these, then I'm going to show you one where you see how people actually are manipulating you using these things. Because here, if you look at this, we were talking before, where's my thing? Oh yeah, here we go. So the arranged future, then if you look at the future progressive, for example, what do you see there? That's ongoing in a defined moment in the future. Again, that's one that you can't really depart from because it is what it says it is. So three weeks from now, I will be flying to Florida. Yeah, that's kind of, you can't say I'm going to be flying to Florida, but that's stylistically a little out there. But you can also use this to indicate what's called the normal course of events. Now, what do we mean by that? We talked before about predictions based on prior knowledge, predictions based on present knowledge. You can also have predictions based on norms. In other words, if you assume that everything goes according to a norm, you can make a prediction. Say my kid brother, who lives in Boston and is actually a lawyer of all things, if he moved to the Netherlands and said, I'm moving to Holland and I'm going to be teaching at your university, I'd say, oh, I'd make all kinds of assumptions. I know what kind of law he's in. I know what his interest might be. So I know the people who work in the department that his specialty is in. Then I would say, oh, if that's the case, you'll be working with this one and this one. That's the normal course of events. I'm assuming he's in corporate law. He'll go into the corporate law department. In the corporate law department, so-and-so is teaching and doing research. He'll be working with so-and-so. Could be it's completely different. Maybe he says, I've had an epiphany mark. No longer in corporate law, I'm doing something with some other field. And I say, okay, that can change. But if we follow the norm, then that's what happens. And now here comes, I'm coming back to the Vienna query here, which actually sounds way heavier if you say it like that. Then it sounds like a European, like a novel, the Vienna inquiry by Dan Brown, but okay. Now, how do people manipulate us? Okay, I'm gonna show you something. That's the normal course of events. But what do we see on the next slide? We see here, it says, the simple present as the scheduled future. Scheduled events, activities, and sequences. Now, if you go to a bus or train station in the English-speaking world, so bus or train station, they announce the coming and going of all the trains and buses using the simple present. So the number 14 inbound bus from Manchester arrives at this and this post in 10 minutes. The outbound train to Chicago leaves the platform in 15 minutes. This one arrives, this one leaves, this one departs, this one enters. It's all in the simple present. Because what are they doing? They're emphasizing the schedule. Even if the train is 45 minutes late, they still say it arrives, it departs, we've got a schedule, we're doing this thing for you. But now go to a plane, now go to an airport. They don't say that. They actually use the future progressive. We'll be arriving in 10 minutes. We'll be departing from this in 20 minutes. They've done research into this. Languages have done research into this. What they discovered is that at bus stops and train stations, people are obsessed with times and they don't give three things about safety. And trust me, I've been on delayed trains, they really don't care. If we were once stuck just outside of the university, most of the people on board would have voted to just walk along the tracks to get to class, whatever. They care only about the schedule. So everything's expressed in schedule terms, the scheduled future. But people at airports, they want to be on time, but most importantly, they want to be safe. And the normal course of events future is reassuring language. It's like everything is going the way it should, according to norms. The plane will be landing, it won't have an accident, everything will be fine, the people will be safe. We literally get manipulated by this language. And then finally, as I said, oh, sorry, there is also then the mandated future. And this is very much the last one, but the one you need to remember. This is things that are supposed to happen by decree protocol, law, mandate. If it has to take place, then you have to use this future. It has to take place because of an external, official authority making it happen. This, ladies and gentlemen, is why in many places, emergency instructions are given in the mandated future. In case of emergency, you are to exit the building using the stairs only. You're being ordered by authority to do this. It's a mandate. So with that in mind, I've given you an overview of, well, a whole bunch of stuff. And among that whole bunch of stuff, big language intentionally used, what we've discussed is we talked about working backwards. We talked about future expression. We've done the initial stuff on the initial materials on that. We did add a first foray into lexicon building. We talked about voice and direction, passive and active. We talked about the modes and the key modes and styles in legal writing and legal expression. So the attic versus the asianic, that gave you some principles of communication on the law and communication among the professions. In general, there only rests in this respect, one thing left for me to do. What any good teacher would do at the end of any session, I got some homework for you.