Re[2]: Express (Abusrdity escalated)

Subject: Re[2]: Express (Abusrdity escalated)
From: "Arlen P. Walker" <Arlen -dot- P -dot- Walker -at- JCI -dot- COM>
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 1994 13:08:00 -0500

Arlen, you're wrong. Look at the original sentence again!

I can look at the original sentence until my eyeballs rot and I still see that
the word "expressed" adds NOTHING WHATSOEVER to the statement. In case you
hadn't noticed the word "written" also means something which happened in the
past, so the -ed adds nothing either. As I tried (but apparently failed) to
point out, it can't be written without being expressed, according to the
definition of the term you supplied.

However, as someone else out here pointed out, the word "express" has legal
implications (which your quaint but redundant insistance upon expressed
doesn't). Since the subject of the entire paragraph is the legal status of the
document, it's not all that great a reach choose the legal word "express" rather
than the redundant word "expressed."

The statement says
that you (or anyone else) may not copy it unless you have the written
consent or the (author). If you (or anyone else) are copying it(thus you
have RECEIVED permission from the author prior to your using it), you
have received the EXPRESSED written consent of the author.

Or, as I maintain, that you may not copy it unless you have written permission
from the author explicitly giving you that right, rather than something in
writing from the author which only implies that you have permission to reproduce

The emphasis here is WHEN exactly you received the consent of the author.
You may use it IF you have the expressED permission (the expressing was
done in the past because you are using it now).

The emphasis is on what exactly is said in the written communication from the
author. If the permission is only implied, then I still may not reproduce it.
If, on the other hand the permission is bluntly stated ("You may reproduce this
document x times for thus and so specific purpose") I am allowed to reproduce

If you look again, Arlen, you'll see that the official legal statement is
gramatically correct, based on when the consent is given by the author.

I've never considered redundancy grammatically correct. Perhaps you do.

As you remember, Arlen, we use the past tense (like -ED at the and of
words) to express things that happened in the past. (No pun intended).

We use -en for this purpose as well. It's called past perfect. (I'll see your
past and raise you a perfect! So There! Nyah! )

Have fun,
Chief Managing Director In Charge, Department of Redundancy Department

Arlen -dot- P -dot- Walker -at- JCI -dot- Com
In God we trust; all others must provide data.

Previous by Author: Re[2]: redundancy
Next by Author: Re: having or to have
Previous by Thread: None
Next by Thread: Re: Re[2]: Express (Abusrdity escalated)

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads