TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
>>I will continue to use it as "expressed written consent" simply
because our forefathers wrote it that way. However, even if it IS
gramatically incorrect (as you state), since it is now written in
legal documents, that's the way it shall stand. Oh well. There's
probably nothing you or I could do to change it.
So, our forefathers didn't know how to write well. But again, that's
not the first time I've found something screwy with the English
This one shouted at me. Perhaps I misinterpreted what was said above,
but my take on it is that it doesn't matter what the correct usage is
NOW, because our "forefathers" (how long ago are you talking
about?/was that a joke?) wrote it as "expressed..." that's what you're
going to use. If you are not writing in a legal sense, and you want
to use expressed, that's one thing. But if you are writing text that
is written (hi, Arlen) for legal interpretation, then IMHO you are
discrediting the intent of the document, and certainly not doing your
client/employer any favor. Others have cited the (obvious)
differences in the definitions of "express" and "expressed", so I
won't do it again, but there are very important differences. English
language usage has changed dramatically over the years since our
"forefathers." I would hate to imagine what could happen to legal
interpretations if writers and editors randomly used language as our
jan (jsummers -at- cclink -dot- logicon -dot- com)