Compound preposition: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Why, for example, exercise your rights “[[under]]” a {{tag|contract}} when you can do so “[[in accordance with]]” or “[[pursuant to]]” it? | Why, for example, exercise your rights “[[under]]” a {{tag|contract}} when you can do so “[[in accordance with]]” or “[[pursuant to]]” it? | ||
{{plainenglish}} | |||
{{c2|plain English|Preposition}} | {{c2|plain English|Preposition}} | ||
Revision as of 17:25, 16 March 2017
A compound preposition does the same job as a plain old preposition, only more tediously. Therefore it is beloved of our old friend the mediocre attorney.
We know that our legal brethren delight in perverting the ordinary use of words - nominalising verbs into nouns, and so on, and the compound preposition is a neat way of co-opting nouns, conjunctions — all kinds — into the servile business of putting one noun in relation to another.
Why, for example, exercise your rights “under” a contract when you can do so “in accordance with” or “pursuant to” it?
Plain English Anatomy™ Noun | Verb | Adjective | Adverb | Preposition | Conjunction | Latin | Germany | Flannel | Legal triplicate | Nominalisation | Murder your darlings