Prohibition forms from the corpus

Analysis of real fragments: the package identifier, the act, the form verdict (exemplary / disputed / wrong form choice), and why.

OverviewBoundariesCorpus formsPitfalls

Law

1. Turkish Constitution, art. 14 — abuse prohibition (exemplary)

Package tr.constitution — Constitution of Türkiye (RefrainFromAbuseOfRights):

Arxo Law

rule AbuseOfRightsProhibition(subject: Person, right: FundamentalRight) strict {
    when person(subject);
    when fundamental_right(right);
    then prohibition RefrainFromAbuseOfRights {
        bearer subject;
        action right_abuse_activity(subject, right);
        window [@1982-11-09, infinity);
    };

Exemplary: the article’s vocabulary (“may not be used in the form of an activity…”) matches the prohibition form. The window runs from the constitution’s adoption date into infinity: a prohibition with no statute of limitations. The breach is observed by the prohibition itself.

2. Kazakhstan Labour Code — prohibition with an open window (exemplary)

Package kz.corpus.labour_code — Labour Code of Kazakhstan (TerminateDuringIncapacity): window [since, infinity) for for since: Date, premise-bound. Exemplary: the most common corpus prohibition-window form — a variable boundary instead of a literal.

3. Turkish Constitution — a series of prohibitions, arts. 14–65 (exemplary)

Package tr.constitution — Constitution of Türkiye: RefrainFromUnlawfulKilling, RefrainFromInstructingCourts, RefrainFromNonBudgetClauses; plus package kg.constitution — Constitution of Kyrgyzstan (judiciary chapter): RefrainFromInterferingWithJustice. The series shows: a prohibition is the default form for “the state/person may not…” wherever there is an addressed party. Where there is no addressee, the form would be disputed — a prohibition’s addressee is mandatory.

4. Kyrgyz Constitution — non-interference with justice (exemplary)

Package kg.constitution — Constitution of Kyrgyzstan: then prohibition RefrainFromInterferingWithJustice. A pair with the negative head of the same act (then not non_interference_with_justice_observed, see the negation page): the prohibition addresses the actor (“do not interfere”), the negation states (“compliance is absent”) — separated by addressee.

Adjacent forms

5. Warlpiri — taboo without prohibition (form boundary)

Package custom.warlpiri.kinship — Warlpiri kinship law: marriage classes written as constraint, not prohibition (see the constraint page). Verdict: not an error but a form boundary — a taboo names no party with a window, so a prohibition with its mandatory addressee would be a stretch. The selection rule holds.

6. Explicit goal forbearance — almost never written (form boundary)

Explicit goal forbearance is rare next to then prohibition. Verdict: not an error but evidence that the prohibition form won: the acts’ vocabulary (“is prohibited”) matches the written form, and explicit forbearance is written only where the source’s vocabulary demands the word “duty”.