Rather, the separation that severs the second clause from the first consists in inserting a condition between the two clauses. For example, someone might say: “I have established an endowment for my children, on condition that they are poor, then for my grandchildren, on condition that they are upright.” The second condition does not apply to what precedes it, because the first clause has already been followed by its own condition. Inserting a condition between two coordinated elements prevents them from sharing all the same provisions. This differs from a case where the difference involves no intervening wording.

Seventh: His statement:

“This is only because the provisions differ.”

We reply: We do not concede this. Rather, it is because of the intervening wording, which prevents the provisions conveyed by the wording from applying jointly to both.

If, however, the difference between the two coordinated elements arises from the meaning of the latter element’s wording, this is true of any two coordinated elements belonging to different categories. There is a difference between separating two clauses by an explicitly stated condition and the wording of one clause having a different meaning from that of the other. This is clear to anyone who reflects on it.

If it is said:

“There is a second consideration favouring this interpretation: making the condition apply exclusively to the final clause conveys something not otherwise indicated by the wording, namely, that the descendants are prevented from sharing in the portion of someone who dies without leaving children. Were it not for this condition, they would share in their entire entitlement, received from those above them and from those who die leaving children or leaving none. This is unlike the case where it applies to all