posted
Notwithstanding, we acknowledge that at Weekly Progress Meeting no 36, held on April 1, 2004, it was stated that work could proceed. Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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 ]
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
Then it should be Notwithstanding, we acknowledged at Weekly Progress Meeting no. 36, held on 1 April 2004, that work could proceed..
Posts: 1144 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
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
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?
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. (No offense, I'm definitely guilty of this in my own work...)
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 5700 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
