Enter into: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
In which one does not need the preposition “into” seeing as, by definition, entering something — even a legal contract — is “going into it”.  
{{a|plainenglish|{{image|enter into|jpg|}}}}In which one does not need the preposition “into” seeing as, by definition, entering something — even a legal contract — is “going into it”. Yet even stylists as fine as the draftsperson of ''[[A Manual of Style For the Drafting of Contractual Instruments]]'' — whose very title betrays its author as the sort of fellow whose idea of “style” is a waistcoat and pantaloons — find the thought of omitting that [[preposition]] oddly “unnatural”.<ref>https://twitter.com/KonciseD/status/1259937844585431042</ref>


Nonetheless, the resourceful draftsperson will insist on entering ''into'' legal agreements (and might correct your draft if you neglect to do so). Indeed, one with a higher dan might even chain {{sex|his or her}} {{tag|preposition}}s together, tether them to a {{tag|passive}} and speak reverently of a transaction “entered into ''under'' this agreement”.
Nonetheless, the resourceful draftsperson will insist on entering ''into'' legal agreements (and might correct your draft if you neglect to do so). Indeed, one with a higher dan might even chain {{sex|his or her}} [[preposition]]s together, tether them to a [[passive]] and speak reverently of a transaction “entered into ''under'' this agreement”.
 
{{ref}}
{{plainenglish}}

Latest revision as of 13:30, 14 August 2024

Towards more picturesque speech
File:Enter into.jpg
SEC guidance on plain EnglishIndex: Click to expand:
Tell me more
Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.

In which one does not need the preposition “into” seeing as, by definition, entering something — even a legal contract — is “going into it”. Yet even stylists as fine as the draftsperson of A Manual of Style For the Drafting of Contractual Instruments — whose very title betrays its author as the sort of fellow whose idea of “style” is a waistcoat and pantaloons — find the thought of omitting that preposition oddly “unnatural”.[1]

Nonetheless, the resourceful draftsperson will insist on entering into legal agreements (and might correct your draft if you neglect to do so). Indeed, one with a higher dan might even chain his or her prepositions together, tether them to a passive and speak reverently of a transaction “entered into under this agreement”.

References