 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / British English / March 2005Good English?
Hallo, in a rather formal document published by my employer, I found the following phrase: "You must ensure that you have read and understand [the relevant regulations]". For some reason, I don't like this sentence; for me, it does not sound like good English. However, as I am not a native speaker, I may be wrong and this is a very elegant way of expression. What do you think of this? Best wishes, Gunter > Hallo, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > What do you think of this? The word "understand" should be "understood" if it means '[have] understood' If it means 'that you understand', it should say exactly that.  SignatureJohn Briggs > The word "understand" should be "understood" if it means '[have] understood' > > If it means 'that you understand', it should say exactly that. So it is ambiguous? When I read it the first time, I wasn't sure whether 'understand' should have been in the same tense as 'read' (present perfect) or whether it should be present, meaning that I 'understand' the regulations as I *have* read them. But I'm still not sure which of the two possibilities would be the right expression. What do you think? Gunter >> The word "understand" should be "understood" if it means '[have] >> understood' [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > But I'm still not sure which of the two possibilities would be the right > expression. What do you think? It could be either - that's what "ambiguous" means :-) "... that you understand ..." is probably preferable, otherwise some comedian could say that he understood the regulations when he read them, but no longer does :-) SignatureJohn Briggs Gunter Kuhnle wrote... >>The word "understand" should be "understood" if it means '[have] understood' >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > But I'm still not sure which of the two possibilities would be the right > expression. What do you think? "You must ensure that you have read and understand [the relevant regulations]". This is perfectly good English, and was undoubtedly drawn up by a lawyer ;) you have read the regulations (past tense) you understand them as they currently stand (now, and anytime after) Worded like this, it requires you to know regulations which may not be in the document, and may have been introduced after the document was published. You must have read the document, but you must *always* know the current regulations. > This is perfectly good English, and was undoubtedly drawn up by a lawyer ;) Is it really _good_ English, not only legal English? I don't think it was a lawyer, as the text also states that 'changes [in the relevant document] should be [...] signed [by an authorised person]'. However, the regulation states that they _must_ be signed, so I would assume that 'shall' or 'must' would be the proper verb. Or do I misinterpret the 'should' used here? > Worded like this, it requires you to know regulations which may not be > in the document, and may have been introduced after the document was > published. You must have read the document, but you must *always* > know the current regulations. ACK - but isn't there a better way to express this? The document is for normal people, not for lawyers. Gunter Signature./. > > This is perfectly good English, and was undoubtedly drawn up by a > > lawyer ;) > Is it really _good_ English, not only legal English? Yes, it is perfectly good English. It is merely asking that you comply with the two conditions, the first (reading) being a single event in time that has to have occurred in the past, and the second (understanding) being an ongoing state. There is no need in English for all parts of a sentence to have the same tense. Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/zodiac/2tau-0.htm Taurus (April 21st - May 21st) Vrishabha - the Bull Hathor Gunter Kuhnle wrote... >>This is perfectly good English, and was undoubtedly drawn up by a lawyer ;) > > Is it really _good_ English, not only legal English? "ensure that you have read and understand [the relevant policy]" When I say it's perfectly good English I mean it's technically correct (depending on how [the relevant policy] is actually worded) but would rarely be used in that style. It would normally be 'have read and understood'. It's not quite right as it is - it's drawing unnatural attention to the present tense. It's being too specific, and as someone else pointed out, probably deliberately so. If I /had/ to use that sentence I would put in at least one comma and probably two - but then lawyers are famous for not using punctuation. The mixing of tenses like this is probably best left for lawyers, poets, and local dialects. The wording is very particular. It's legalese or maybe even a typo. Maybe it's 'management speak'. "I've read the regulations and understand them" sounds fine to me. "I've read the regulations and understood them" sounds a bit wrong. "I've cooked my dinner and eat it" sounds all wrong. "I've read the book and say it's good" sounds fine. go figure! you probably at least need to be referring to the same noun in both tenses. That's why I say [the wording you left out] is relevant. "I've bought a football and kick it." doh! > Gunter Kuhnle wrote... > > Is it really _good_ English, not only legal English? > "ensure that you have read and understand [the relevant policy]" > > When I say it's perfectly good English I mean it's technically correct > (depending on how [the relevant policy] is actually worded) but would rarely be > used in that style. It would normally be 'have read and understood'. No, it is a shortening of "you have read and you understand". English allows you to convert <subject> <verb phrase> and <subject> <verb phrase> to <subject> <verb phrase> and <verb phrase> where the two <subject>s are identical. Sometimes the repetition of the subject sounds clumsy, and making this conversion leads to a more elegant sentence, but at other times the copnversion leads to clumsy senetences. In this case I think "you have read and you understand" would actually be the better sentence. > It's not > quite right as it is - it's drawing unnatural attention to the present tense. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > go figure! you probably at least need to be referring to the same noun in both > tenses. That's why I say [the wording you left out] is relevant. But "I've cooked my dinner and am eating it" and "I've cooked my dinner and will eat it". sound fine. In this case I think the wrongness of your sentence comes from the verb chosen not from the difference in tenses. The verb "to understand" describes an action that continues, while the verb "to eat" describes an action that starts and then stops. So "I understand the problem" can refer to a single problem, while "I eat my dinner" cannot refer to a single dinner, and this is the source of the wrongness. If you are referring to a sinle dinner, it has to be "I am eating my dinner". The sentence "I eat my dinner" only works when it refers to a habitual action involving many actual dinners, as in "I eat my dinner at six o'clock every day". So also > "I've bought a football and kick it." doh! is fine when it becomes "I've bought a football and kick it around every lunchtime". Matthew Huntbach > > The word "understand" should be "understood" if it means '[have] understood' > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > But I'm still not sure which of the two possibilities would be the right > expression. What do you think? I think either is grammatically correct. The most used form is "... have read and understood ...", even though what is really meant is " ... have read ..." (at some time) "... and understand..." (now). I feel that in a case like this there is an argument to be made for using the less usual form to make the reader do a double-take and consider what it really means. -- Mike Stevens, narrowboat Felis Catus II web site www.mike-stevens.co.yk Old grammarians never die, they simply parse away. > Hallo, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > What do you think of this? It does make sense but looks a little strange as at first glance you expect the word "understood" to be used, not "understand". However if you rewrite it like this... You must ensure that you: 1. Have read the relevant regulations 2. Understand the relevant regulations. ...the meaning becomes clear. > Hallo, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > "You must ensure that you have read and understand [the relevant > regulations]". I always find these kind of clauses to be meaningless - how can you be sure that you do actually "understand" the meaning that the other person imparts to what they have written? The only way that I can think of is to have an intensive period of discussion with the other person, allowing an extended question and answer session. I can find ambiguities in the most mundane of sentences if I want so I might have a different "understanding" to everyone else's! > > Hallo, > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > "You must ensure that you have read and understand [the relevant > > regulations]". The compound verb in the subordinate clause is not composed of similar tenses. I would prefer for it to say either ". . . that you read and understand . . ." or ". . . that you have read and understood . . ." Sincerely, Edward Warren > > > Hallo, > > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > ". . . that you read and understand . . ." or > ". . . that you have read and understood . . ." Except that each of those means something slightly different. The original sentence means (a) that you have completed reading them, and (b) that you *still* understand them. "... that you read and understand ..." could mean that you should do so sometime in the (near) future. "... that you have read and understood ..." could mean that you read them in the past and understood at the time, but maybe no longer understand them! Cheers Tony SignatureTony Mountifield Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org >> Hallo, >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > mundane of sentences if I want so I might have a different "understanding" > to everyone else's! I agree. But it can work to your own advantage as you can sign to say you understand it, knowing that you understand it to your own satisfaction, with your own interpretation, which may not be theirs. >>Hallo, >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > sentences if I want so I might have a different "understanding" to everyone > else's! Depends, surely, on the content of the document. If the text were in plain statement, like "Any employee found smoking in the toilets during working hours will be instantly dismissed," it's hard to believe that anyone who read it could fail to understand it. If the text is complex or convoluted, and the ideas themselves difficult to grasp, the fault would IMO lie with the writer of the document; it is for the *writer* to "ensure" that his/her readers can understand the document - or perhaps find a more suitable means of putting across the message. Re "read and understand" v. "read and understood", there seems to me to be little difference between them, though the first version would benefit from a couple of commas. Alternatively, what's wrong with "You must ensure that you understand the relevant regulations"? You're not likely to understand the regs if you *haven't* read them. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.