This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I don't think databases qualify as "a small class of works".—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
some guidance on this page for pronunciation would be great :) I would do it, but I don't know how to pronounce it. On the other hand, perhaps it is subject to regional variation which is usually simply split between the US and other English speaking nations, so it would be good to have both. On the other hand, it isn't even English, so <shrug>
i added the 'official' British English pronounciation
As it's latin, I do think the correct pronunciation is "sew-i generis" as opposed to "swee". The "sew" is pronounced the same as the name Sue. The generis part is easy - just pronounce each letter, as in "jeneris".
Many of us have not been so fortunate as to have obtained higher education and so must take our education where we can find it. Wikipedia is one of those places. The "pronunciation guide" left me more confused then when I started reading. I'm guessing something along the lines of "swee john-a-ree" but I could be off by miles.
The Latin pronounciation of "g" is always like in "good" and not like in "general". However, the expression was popularised in the English language, and therefore commonly used with English pronounciation. I suggest this be clarified on the page. Tang Wenlong ( talk) 18:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
It's correct definition is "of its own kind; unlike anything else".
Hi!
At present, the European Union is quite unique as an organisation, as currently no other inter-state body matches its level of integration, yet shares its diffusion of sovereignty.
However, if the proposed South American Community of Nations develops as proposed (which is not exactly a sure thing, it must be said) would the Sui generis term be less valid when referrign to the EU, or would any deviance between a developed SCN and EU still allow for the term to be valid?
-- Nerroth 10:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
This phrase seems to be getting more use lately. I think I first noticed someone use it about 2 years ago and now I hear it quite often. Does anyone know how or why it has been re-injected into the vernacular?
The reason I think is that the Sui Generis organization is being a little more vocal of late. I did actually add an addition to the page, but it was deleted, probably because mine was the only source of it. I'm trying to get more sources to validate it. I know it to be true because I'm a member of it. It's been around for a while, and is a very good thing. I would add that anything to be purporting to be Sui Generis in this manner on the web isn't anything to do with it. Nor are any companies with the name related.
Homo sapiens are sui generis in the animal kingdom.
The expression was used by Duke University for the 2000-01 academic year in its Student Brochure. It was like, "Duke University.......Sui Generis (Altogether Unique)" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.176.20.228 ( talk) 18:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC).
Is there some reason why the lead avoids using the common phrase, "in a class of its own?" Baon 05:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I know it's used to describe the genre of the gospels in the New Testament (as in, "The Gospels are sui generis as a genre."), as they are unlike other biographies in their basic nature and purpose, and unlike any other genre within Christian scripture. I'll let anyone inclined to include this in the article arue it out with the anti-religious or anti-(for whatever reason) people whether this should be included or not. Will look for references in the meantime. 61.77.135.17 ( talk) 07:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
You can call it "examples in media" or whatnot in you want, but it's still a trivia section. The article is more than adequate without referencing Meryl Streep in The Devil Wears Prada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.129.135.114 ( talk) 14:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
In the EU law there exists a relatively significant category of decisions that are not per se regulated by the treaties, namely, sui generis decisions. They have been a subject of some academical interest as of late. Based on the European Court of Justice's decisions (e.g. Case C-370/07) these decisions have now an official position within EU law. Within the mentioned decision ECJ concludes:
And it continues by mentioning the special character of these decision by stating:
Hence, I do think that this particular kind of decision-making procedure ought to be mentioned as part of definition of sui generis (or there should be a separate entry for it). -- 78.27.66.123 ( talk) 06:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
The section on town planning does not actually explain the meaning of the term in that context. The section begins: "In British town planning law, many common types of land use are classified in "Use Classes". Change of use of land within a Use Class does not require planning permission; however, changing between certain Use Classes requires planning permission." This text reads as a preamble for an explanation, but the explanation never comes. Instead, some examples are presented, making it clear that the author thinks the above text is an explanation. Rdanbury ( talk) 09:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)rdanbury
This section is confusing and seems to be completely at odds with the current legislation. See the summary in Standard Note SN/SC/1301 6 May 2014
[Quote} Not every use of building is put into a use class under this legislation. Examples of these are theatres, hostels providing no significant element of care, scrap yards, petrol stations, nightclubs, launderettes, taxi businesses, amusement centres and casinos. If a building or business is “sui generis” i.e., not in a particular category, or the new use is “sui generis”, then there will need to be a planning application to change the use under the procedures set out in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Being sui generis does not preclude a change of use, it just means that a planning application has to be made so that the local planning authority can consider the implications of change of use in detail. [Unquote] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.37.40 ( talk) 11:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
should probably not be a list.-- 345Kai ( talk) 04:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
This can also be related to The Sui Generist Mind. The structure of the brain within non-neurotypical and neurotypical processes are inherently different. (ed. This sentence does not make sense. Agreement is incorrect, but more significantly, what is meant by saying the structure of the brain WITHIN these functions? Is this a translation error or a conceptual difference of importance that is inadequately explained?)
It seems somewhat awkward to have different bullets for law and IP law, as I think the intellectual property usage is just another angle of "unique in its kind" law. Sui generis legislation for intellectual property isn't that different from sui generis cases or authority.
Tentative rewording:
Arttechlaw ( talk) 22:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Added trade secret to list of common IP types. Poor trade secret is always left out from all the fun parties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.159.199.114 ( talk) 21:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
A problem exists in the clause a conjunctive (X 'and' Y) intention to the legislature even though the list is disjunctive (X 'or' Y)
Legalese assumes the word "or" to be inclusive, that is "A or B or BOTH", from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/OR: conj. either; in the alternative. The boolean exclusive sense "XOR" is rendered "A or B but not BOTH".
So the entire sentence here is senseless as it stands; and if one corrects it, there is no need for this example. Actually, the entire paragraph is unlikely to be useful, it's a bad example. The conjunction "and" used here in its boolean sense does not, per se, introduce vagueness. We could usefully choose a different example in the first para, which may well eliminate the need for misusing the word "or". One notes that the word "unlawful" is not capable of misinterpetation, it has no ambiguity. Of course, coupled with "malicious" in certain ways, there is room for debate: but the use of "and" notes solely that the action was primarily against the law, and secondarily it was done in order to harm some thing or person. Now if the conjunction "or" had been used... 124.148.89.144 ( talk) 06:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
I've changed it. 124.148.89.144 ( talk) 04:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Under the Sociology heading the second sentence reads:
"It is not something that is not thought to have been created because it is imbedded in everyone's way of thinking and being."
The use of the double negative here is confusing and awkward I think. Does this mean "It is something that is thought to have been created...?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whimsycrat ( talk • contribs) 18:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I don't think databases qualify as "a small class of works".—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
some guidance on this page for pronunciation would be great :) I would do it, but I don't know how to pronounce it. On the other hand, perhaps it is subject to regional variation which is usually simply split between the US and other English speaking nations, so it would be good to have both. On the other hand, it isn't even English, so <shrug>
i added the 'official' British English pronounciation
As it's latin, I do think the correct pronunciation is "sew-i generis" as opposed to "swee". The "sew" is pronounced the same as the name Sue. The generis part is easy - just pronounce each letter, as in "jeneris".
Many of us have not been so fortunate as to have obtained higher education and so must take our education where we can find it. Wikipedia is one of those places. The "pronunciation guide" left me more confused then when I started reading. I'm guessing something along the lines of "swee john-a-ree" but I could be off by miles.
The Latin pronounciation of "g" is always like in "good" and not like in "general". However, the expression was popularised in the English language, and therefore commonly used with English pronounciation. I suggest this be clarified on the page. Tang Wenlong ( talk) 18:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
It's correct definition is "of its own kind; unlike anything else".
Hi!
At present, the European Union is quite unique as an organisation, as currently no other inter-state body matches its level of integration, yet shares its diffusion of sovereignty.
However, if the proposed South American Community of Nations develops as proposed (which is not exactly a sure thing, it must be said) would the Sui generis term be less valid when referrign to the EU, or would any deviance between a developed SCN and EU still allow for the term to be valid?
-- Nerroth 10:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
This phrase seems to be getting more use lately. I think I first noticed someone use it about 2 years ago and now I hear it quite often. Does anyone know how or why it has been re-injected into the vernacular?
The reason I think is that the Sui Generis organization is being a little more vocal of late. I did actually add an addition to the page, but it was deleted, probably because mine was the only source of it. I'm trying to get more sources to validate it. I know it to be true because I'm a member of it. It's been around for a while, and is a very good thing. I would add that anything to be purporting to be Sui Generis in this manner on the web isn't anything to do with it. Nor are any companies with the name related.
Homo sapiens are sui generis in the animal kingdom.
The expression was used by Duke University for the 2000-01 academic year in its Student Brochure. It was like, "Duke University.......Sui Generis (Altogether Unique)" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.176.20.228 ( talk) 18:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC).
Is there some reason why the lead avoids using the common phrase, "in a class of its own?" Baon 05:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I know it's used to describe the genre of the gospels in the New Testament (as in, "The Gospels are sui generis as a genre."), as they are unlike other biographies in their basic nature and purpose, and unlike any other genre within Christian scripture. I'll let anyone inclined to include this in the article arue it out with the anti-religious or anti-(for whatever reason) people whether this should be included or not. Will look for references in the meantime. 61.77.135.17 ( talk) 07:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
You can call it "examples in media" or whatnot in you want, but it's still a trivia section. The article is more than adequate without referencing Meryl Streep in The Devil Wears Prada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.129.135.114 ( talk) 14:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
In the EU law there exists a relatively significant category of decisions that are not per se regulated by the treaties, namely, sui generis decisions. They have been a subject of some academical interest as of late. Based on the European Court of Justice's decisions (e.g. Case C-370/07) these decisions have now an official position within EU law. Within the mentioned decision ECJ concludes:
And it continues by mentioning the special character of these decision by stating:
Hence, I do think that this particular kind of decision-making procedure ought to be mentioned as part of definition of sui generis (or there should be a separate entry for it). -- 78.27.66.123 ( talk) 06:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
The section on town planning does not actually explain the meaning of the term in that context. The section begins: "In British town planning law, many common types of land use are classified in "Use Classes". Change of use of land within a Use Class does not require planning permission; however, changing between certain Use Classes requires planning permission." This text reads as a preamble for an explanation, but the explanation never comes. Instead, some examples are presented, making it clear that the author thinks the above text is an explanation. Rdanbury ( talk) 09:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)rdanbury
This section is confusing and seems to be completely at odds with the current legislation. See the summary in Standard Note SN/SC/1301 6 May 2014
[Quote} Not every use of building is put into a use class under this legislation. Examples of these are theatres, hostels providing no significant element of care, scrap yards, petrol stations, nightclubs, launderettes, taxi businesses, amusement centres and casinos. If a building or business is “sui generis” i.e., not in a particular category, or the new use is “sui generis”, then there will need to be a planning application to change the use under the procedures set out in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Being sui generis does not preclude a change of use, it just means that a planning application has to be made so that the local planning authority can consider the implications of change of use in detail. [Unquote] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.37.40 ( talk) 11:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
should probably not be a list.-- 345Kai ( talk) 04:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
This can also be related to The Sui Generist Mind. The structure of the brain within non-neurotypical and neurotypical processes are inherently different. (ed. This sentence does not make sense. Agreement is incorrect, but more significantly, what is meant by saying the structure of the brain WITHIN these functions? Is this a translation error or a conceptual difference of importance that is inadequately explained?)
It seems somewhat awkward to have different bullets for law and IP law, as I think the intellectual property usage is just another angle of "unique in its kind" law. Sui generis legislation for intellectual property isn't that different from sui generis cases or authority.
Tentative rewording:
Arttechlaw ( talk) 22:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Added trade secret to list of common IP types. Poor trade secret is always left out from all the fun parties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.159.199.114 ( talk) 21:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
A problem exists in the clause a conjunctive (X 'and' Y) intention to the legislature even though the list is disjunctive (X 'or' Y)
Legalese assumes the word "or" to be inclusive, that is "A or B or BOTH", from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/OR: conj. either; in the alternative. The boolean exclusive sense "XOR" is rendered "A or B but not BOTH".
So the entire sentence here is senseless as it stands; and if one corrects it, there is no need for this example. Actually, the entire paragraph is unlikely to be useful, it's a bad example. The conjunction "and" used here in its boolean sense does not, per se, introduce vagueness. We could usefully choose a different example in the first para, which may well eliminate the need for misusing the word "or". One notes that the word "unlawful" is not capable of misinterpetation, it has no ambiguity. Of course, coupled with "malicious" in certain ways, there is room for debate: but the use of "and" notes solely that the action was primarily against the law, and secondarily it was done in order to harm some thing or person. Now if the conjunction "or" had been used... 124.148.89.144 ( talk) 06:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
I've changed it. 124.148.89.144 ( talk) 04:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Under the Sociology heading the second sentence reads:
"It is not something that is not thought to have been created because it is imbedded in everyone's way of thinking and being."
The use of the double negative here is confusing and awkward I think. Does this mean "It is something that is thought to have been created...?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whimsycrat ( talk • contribs) 18:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)