Interesting provision in a contract for leasing land for a solar energy facility. There is an easement provision that includes the "right to emit shadows." I'm sharing it because I found the provision somewhat amusing on its face and because the word "emit" seems improper (from a technical standpoint). The obvious replacement is "cast" but at least one online source identifies "emit" as a synonym of "cast." What do you all think of this? Doesn't "emit" seem wrong when used to describe producing a shadow?
It definitely does, but in the context so does cast, because technically a shadow isn't an object. It's just the lack of light, blocked by an object in its path. So it should probably be reworded to be about the right to block light or to deny access to sunlight.
I would say to "emit" means to add something, while to "cast" suggests subtraction - if you emit light, you are adding light rays, while a shadow is caused by the subtraction of light - therefore, you could argue they mean the complete opposite! You can emit a piercing scream, or emit methane - one never casts those two things.
Technically to cast means to throw. Had to look up the root word mit, also sometimes mis, which means to send (omit, remit etc) (commit? limit?), and the e on the beginning means 'out' or outward. So to emit means to send out.
Yes, I think this makes sense. Further on, there is language in the agreement about obstructing or impairing solar irradiation or insolation. I'm not sure why they used the 'emit shadows' language, but it seems better to use the more correct language (and also to be consistent in the agreement).
That's certainly my understanding of the two. I suppose for certain definitions of 'cast' they could be similar (in the fantasy context, for example, 'casting' a spell?)
We learned about light backwards, we had to kind of reverse engineer it to understand it. Originally people believed we could see because the eyes emitted rays of some kind that would strike objects and either be reflected back (radar-style) or some might have thought just striking an object allowed us to see it. And it's easy to see how people thought of shadows as things, since they're defined. Without understanding the properties of light it seems natural to take shadows for things rather than the lack of an almost all-pervasive element we lived in (in the daytime anyway). A lot of modern thought and language still reflects these early beliefs. It was the long-term work of science to gradually weed these out and see things the way they really are. Another example—people once believed insects just spontaneously came into being in piles of rotting garbage.
Yeah. In college, in a microbiology lab, we had to prepare sterile media for growing microorganisms. When I came back for the next lab, my sterile media was cloudy--it had microorganisms growing in it. My professor rejected my lab write-up in which I suggested I had revitalized the theory of spontaneous generation. She stubbornly clung to the idea that I must have failed to sterilize the media properly and ended up with a contaminant.
Here's the page that came up in my search—this is fascinating stuff: #4 mit → send 1st time I've actually found a page that does the little word game I used to like to do so much, to ferret out related words and discover how they all mean the same thing at some level.
I know you're not talking about literature, but if you were, I would say that I love it when someone uses unconventional verbs. "Emit" works. Someone or something might also exude shadow or leak shadows onto the floor, maybe spill shadows all over the yard or even paint shadows across the wall. I like active verbs connected to passive objects.
The wording may not be completely correct, but it's probably better than saying 'the right to inhibit sunlight'. But why do you find the provision amusing? Seems reasonable given the context, especially if this area is ideal for other solar related leases or projects.
But it's technically more correct to say that. Just like if you live on a river or a stream you don't have the right to block or divert its flow so the people living downstream from you get only dry stream bed. I read some time ago, and I don't remember the context, about a city that wanted to buy up all the properties in a particular area. Or was it not the city but a wealthy man? I think so. All but one sold to him, but that one refused, and the rich guy built a huge wall on his newly-bought property so high that it blocked all sunlight to the hold-outs yard and killed all his trees and grass and his wife's garden. Their offspring inherited the land and still refused to sell it, and eventually the city passed a law saying you can't deliberately block light like that and the wall came down.
When I saw the thread title, I thought someone was planning a story about people needing to get the legal right to emit a shadow. The talk about mit meaning send was fascinating, but I'm still a little disappointed.
Emit is incorrect. In your statement the term cast means like to cast something away, like throwing scratch to chickens or casting a fish line. When something casts a shadow, it isn't anything physical. It can't be emitted, which, as in the definition above, implies movement of the thing being cast. While shadows do move, its not exactly the same thing. A shadow cannot be detached, reduced, modified, touched, tasted, smelled, etc. as a physical object can. This is the difference between a cast shadow and any other cast object. In order for a shadow to be moved and therefore "cast" there must be a light source in such a position as it allows a shadow to be produced. This easement then needs to take into consideration the individual's ability to control the light source, presumably the sun, which will shift its position throughout the day, week, month and year, thus changing the shape and length of the shadow. Which means the easement will need this clarification included.
Since word choice is so important in law, it will be interesting to see how a court rules, should it come to that.
It would be interesting, though a court would likely try to discern the intent of the parties in entering into the agreement. My guess is they would conclude that the parties intended the word to be understood as to cast or produce a shadow that in some way might impact the solar energy facility.
^^^ Courts often rule based on "legislative intent" -- unless the language in a law is so poorly worded that the plain meaning of the written law is contrary to the legislative intent, in which case the court has to follow the plain meaning. I can cite examples.
