Compound preposition: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
We know that our legal brethren delight in perverting the ordinary use of words - [[nominalisation|nominalising]] {{tag|verb}}s into {{tag|noun}}s, and so on, and the [[compound preposition]] is a neat way of co-opting {{tag|noun}}s, {{tag|conjunction}}s — all kinds — into the servile business of putting one noun in relation to another. | We know that our legal brethren delight in perverting the ordinary use of words - [[nominalisation|nominalising]] {{tag|verb}}s into {{tag|noun}}s, and so on, and the [[compound preposition]] is a neat way of co-opting {{tag|noun}}s, {{tag|conjunction}}s — all kinds — into the servile business of putting one noun in relation to another. | ||
Why, for example, | Why, for example, would rights be exercised “[[under]]” a {{tag|contract}} [[by]] a party when they could be [[subject to]] execution [[on the part of]] that party “[[in accordance with]]” the {{t|contract}}? | ||
{{plainenglish}} | {{plainenglish}} | ||
{{c2|plain English|Preposition}} | {{c2|plain English|Preposition}} | ||
Revision as of 13:13, 26 September 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, would rights be exercised “under” a contract by a party when they could be subject to execution on the part of that party “in accordance with” the contract?
Plain English Anatomy™ Noun | Verb | Adjective | Adverb | Preposition | Conjunction | Latin | Germany | Flannel | Legal triplicate | Nominalisation | Murder your darlings