Talk:notwithstanding

including
Is "notwithstanding" ever used to mean "including" or "included"? As in It sounds right to me but I'm not sure if I'm just imagining it.Gregcaletta 03:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "all families, including this one" ==> "all families, this one notwithstanding"?


 * No, in such a context, is more easily substituted. †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

What does it mean, legally?
Legal usage commentary needed. If one law contains a provision, "notwithstanding" another law, which law prevails?

--T71024 (talk) 08:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It means "in spite of", so presumably the "one law" you mention prevails, despite the existence of the other. Equinox ◑ 13:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

(14th century) After Old French 'non obstante' "being of no hindrance"
[14th century. After Old French non obstante "being of no hindrance"] Microsoft® Encarta® 2009 --Backinstadiums (talk) 15:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

adjective?
a notwithstanding clause 17:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. This isn't a clause that is notwithstanding (in the sense that a red wall is red), but a clause based on the word "notwithstanding". More like attributive use. Equinox ◑ 17:48, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

RFD discussion: March 2022
Rfd-sense: noun: instance of using "notwithstanding" - I thought we didn't include these Notusbutthem (talk) 10:57, 12 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Yup, we don’t. Speedily delete. — SGconlaw (talk) 12:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Is there any chance such noun usages have an idiomatic sense like if? ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  11:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Feel free to find three quotations that meet WT:CFI which demonstrate an idiomatic use. (OED does have a noun entry, but says it only appears in the obsolete phrase with a notwithstanding (to). Two 17th-century quotations are given.) — SGconlaw (talk) 12:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, most probably speedily AllenY99 (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Deleted VealSociedad (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Citations: Adam Smith (1776)
Is this a useful quotation?
 * 1776 — Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, Book I, ch. 1
 * The corn of Poland, in the same degree of goodness, is as cheap as that of France, notwithstanding the superior opulence and improvement of the latter country.

It seems to say that although Poland was a relatively impoverished country, its corn was "as cheap as" that of a richer country (with the corn in both countries being of equal quality). Where's the logic in that?! Is it just me? I feel it would have made more sense with something like,
 * "The corn of Poland, in the same degree of goodness, is no cheaper than that of France, notwithstanding the superior opulence and improvement of the latter country."

or
 * "The corn of Poland, in the same degree of goodness, is as expensive as that of France, notwithstanding the superior opulence and improvement of the latter country."

Have the connotations of as cheap as changed over the years?

(I realise that we cannot change the wording of quotations. But we can assess their merit, or provide commentary.)

—DIV (49.186.234.174 06:08, 25 October 2022 (UTC))