Hatrack River Forum: Editing geniuses!

This is topic Editing geniuses! in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=023463

Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :

Am I right in claiming that there is a part of a sentence missing here?

quote:
Notwithstanding, we acknowledge that at Weekly Progress Meeting no 36 held on 1 April 2004 that work could proceed.

I just argued with the author of the letter (who's English) that he should add a phrase "it was stated" or the like:

Notwithstanding, we acknowledge that at Weekly Progress Meeting no 36 held on 1 April 2004 it was stated that work could proceed.

He says it's not necessary do add the words. Who's right? [Wink]

Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :

Kind of depends of what he was intending it to mean:

It could read:

quote:
Notwithstanding, we acknowledged at Weekly Progress Meeting No. 36 held on 1 April 2004 that work could proceed.

or you could say:

quote:
Notwithstanding, we acknowledge that at Weekly Progress Meeting No. 36, held on 1 April 2004, that agreed work could proceed.

There are just lots of way to say this -- what exact meaning was he trying to get?

Farmgirl

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :

You are.

Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :

Notwithstanding, we acknowledge that at Weekly Progress Meeting no 36, held on April 1, 2004, it was stated that work could proceed.
[Dont Know]

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :

I'd get rid of a "that" you already have in and add a "d" to acknowledge

quote:
Notwithstanding, we acknowledged at Weekly Progress Meeting #36 held on 1 April 2004 that work could proceed.

Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :

(yeah, AJ -- that was my first example) I think that sounds best.

Don't you think there should still be a comma after the year, though?

Farmgirl

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :

It does sound best, but to my mind it changes the meaning of the sentence. In the original, as I read it, the author is presently aknowledging that something was stated at a prior point in time. In Banna's modified version, the sentence is changed in such a way that the aknowledgement is what happened at a prior point in time.

Of course, FarmGirl addressed this in her first post as well.

Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :

Nice editing guys. But as Farmgirl pointed out, it depends on what Kama is trying to say. Your edit, although cleaner and more fuel efficient, conveys a different meaning.

Kama is saying: We acknowledge that at this meeting, a decision was made regarding the beginning of work.

Your setence says: We made the decision at this meeting to start work.

Edited to add: arrrrr... too slow. [Smile]

[ April 15, 2004, 10:27 AM: Message edited by: vwiggin ]

Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :

quote:
Kama is saying: We acknowledge that at this meeting, a decision was made regarding the beginning of work.

That was the point of his letter. Yes.

<-- smart

Posted by jehovoid (Member # 2014) on :

I think it should be meeting no 35, not 36. That sounds more meaningful to me.

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :

quote:
Notwithstanding, we acknowledge that at Weekly Progress Meeting no 36 held on 1 April 2004 that work could proceed.

Yes, there's definitely something missing. The first "that" is the head of a subordinate clause that doesn't exist. If you take out the prepositional phrase, it becomes obvious:

quote:
Notwithstanding, we acknowledge that . . . that work could proceed.

Your revision is correct, Kama. Or they should take out the second "that," though I think that's not the meaning they want.

[ April 15, 2004, 05:42 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]

Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :

Yes, definitely something missing. But you know that by now. [Smile]

Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :

No, you don't kneed the words (opps, runaway pun). [Wink]

But seriously, you don't. You might need a comma there though.

Posted by Unmaker (Member # 1641) on :

Sentence is grammatically correct. Silly, but grammatically correct.

Emphasize the second "that," and you'll see.

Notwithstanding, we acknowledge that at Weekly Progress Meeting no. 36 held on 1 April 2004 that work could proceed.

There are, however, two commas missing, after "36" and after "2004."

DB has spoken. Written. Typed. Whatever.

[ April 15, 2004, 05:58 PM: Message edited by: Unmaker ]

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :

I'm pretty sure that's not grammatically correct, David. Either the first "that" is supposed to introduce something that's not there, or the second "that" is redundant (that is, it's trying to introduce the same subordinate clause that the first "that" is introducing). I believe it's grammatically incorrect to repeat a subordinator, but I'll have to double-check. At the very least, I know for sure that it's bad style and should be removed.

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :

quote:
I just argued with the author of the letter (who's English) that he should add a phrase "it was stated" or the like. . . .

He says it's not necessary do add the words. Who's right?

Another question: does he think that your revision is correct in terms of meaning? That is, that his version says the same thing as yours, but in fewer words? If that's the case, then you are absolutely correct, for the reasons I already stated. The first "that" would be introducing a clause that simply isn't there. You can't say, "I don't know if," or "I went to the store because." Such words are complementizers, and if they have no complements, then they're not functioning grammatically.

If that's not the case, then there's a different problem—there's a redundant "that" (without a complement) and there's some ambiguity. If that's the case, it seems like he's trying to say this:

quote:
We acknowledge that work could proceed at Weekly Progress Meeting. . . .

It seems unlikely that work would be proceeding at a meeting, and the tenses are wrong. It should be "did proceed" or "could have proceeded" in that case. But like I said, that seems pretty unlikely, so I think it's the first scenario, in which case your revision (or something similar) is correct.

Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :

Jon Boy, yeah, he said I can add it if I really want to. [Wink]

DB, how is that correct?

We acknowledge that at Weekly Progress Meeting that work could proceed.

Unless you mean the second "that" is "that" as opposed to "this".

But it still doesn't make sense, and it's not what he was saying anyway.

The sense is: There was a meeting, and at the meeting it was said that yes, work could proceed.

[ April 16, 2004, 02:22 AM: Message edited by: Kama ]

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :

Oh, you're right David! I didn't think to put the emphasis on the second "that".

Still, even if it's grammatically correct, I'd say it's confusingly worded.

Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :

There must be an appropriate Dilbert for this thread.

Posted by Unmaker (Member # 1641) on :

Okay, I just thought of something... when was this written? It only works if it was written before the meeting. If afterward, it's a bungled sentence, and its author should be barred from composing English utterances for life.

Heh.

Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :

After.

Posted by Unmaker (Member # 1641) on :

Then it should be Notwithstanding, we acknowledged at Weekly Progress Meeting no. 36, held on 1 April 2004, that work could proceed..

Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :

quote:
We refer to your letter dated 5 April 2004 and whilst noting your comments we fail to understand why you should consider our reference to GCC Clause 40.1, 40.2, 44 and 52.4 to be unjustified when the Engineer’s letter ... clearly notified us of a change in design and instructed a discontinuation of work.

Notwithstanding, we acknowledge that at Weekly Progress Meeting no 36 held on 1 April 2004 that work could proceed.

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :

Yeah, it definitely seems to me that they're saying essentially this: "We acknowledge now that at this meeting held a couple weeks ago, we said that work could proceed." Not "At the meeting a couple weeks ago, we acknowledged that work could proceed." Does that sound right, Kama?

Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :

Do folks in corporations really attempt to communicate like this? And do they really have a meeting just to say, "Yep, let's get to work on this project?"

What's the old saying? In the corporate world, you will eventually be promoted to your level of incompetence.

Corporate structure, computers and data bases, projections and meetings, team building and what not... we have more to work with and we work more, but are we accomplishing anything?

Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :

I don't understand why they are choosing to get so complicated and wordy.

Why didn't they just say:

"At our April 1, 2004, Weekly Progress Meeting No. 36, we agreed that work could proceed."

Wouldn't even be a need to say "acknowledge," because the above sentence acknowledges it!

They are trying to make it more difficult than necessary.

Farmgirl

[ April 16, 2004, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: Farmgirl ]

Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :

It is the group think syndrome. In big organizations, individuals do not want to be the one to make the tough decisions. That's why they write in that distant tone, to separate themselves from their ideas, basically disavowing all responsibility. [Smile]

(No offense, I'm definitely guilty of this in my own work...)

Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :

Jon Boy, yes.

It's a construction company. The letter is to our supervision. We have delays and are seeking extension of time/additional money for the delays. So whether the work could proceed or not is a very important question.

I love the way the guy writes, btw. In one letter to the supervision, he said something like: we will not stoop to answering such questions. Hee hee.