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.
Subject:Re: Re 2]: Word use: Express/ed (Abs From:"K. Edgcombe" <ke10 -at- CUS -dot- CAM -dot- AC -dot- UK> Date:Fri, 16 Dec 1994 16:58:44 GMT
In article <m0rGAxf-0000n5C -at- tao-gate -dot- fisc -dot- com>,
<William -dot- Hartzer -at- emc2-tao -dot- fisc -dot- com> wrote:
>Regarding Margaret's reply to Arlen's original statement that he thinks the
>word 'expressed' is wrong, I will continue to use "expressed."
>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
>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 language.
But the word is "express" and it is quite different from the past tense
"expressed" of the verb "to express". Writing well or badly doesn't
come into it.
Also, I don't know about your forefathers, but I believe mine have been
using "express" in the accepted legal sense for a very long time - probably
ever since they started writing legal documents in English instead of Latin.
(incidentally, if the word had been "expressed", wouldn't it be redundant
when the consent is also described as "written"?)