0
English 1b3 Posted 16 years ago
Grammar

Negate 'the fact' that...

The defendant's intent to repay the money does not negate the fact that he intentionally took money that did not belong to him.

Can someone please explain to me why the sentence makes no sense without 'the fact'? What is the reason we need 'the fact' here, when sometimes the verb negate doesn't require it?

Thank you
  

Top answer

I suppose because it is the fact that has been put forward in the courtroom. I also cannot see how an intention can be negated. I suspect that uses of 'negate' without 'the fact' are for concepts more amenable to negation.

— Mister Micawber

  • I suppose because it is the fact that has been put forward in the courtroom.
  • I also cannot see how an intention can be negated.
  • I suspect that uses of 'negate' without 'the fact' are for concepts more amenable to negation.
  • Have you an example?
Free · every Monday

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.

5 Answers
0
I suppose because it is the fact that has been put forward in the courtroom. I also cannot see how an intention can be negated.

I suspect that uses of 'negate' without 'the fact' are for concepts more amenable to negation. Have you an example?
0
0
quote user="Mister Micawber"]Have you an example?[/quote]

Reports that the sea is highly polluted negates the efforts to expand the tourist industry.
0
0
Ah, OK. Yes, I think it's just semantics: efforts can be 'negated', but intentions cannot.
0
0
The defendant's intent to repay the money does not negate the fact that he intentionally took money that did not belong to him.



But isn't it the words after (that he intentionally took...) that causes the problems?
0

Related Questions