0
SJ88 Posted 16 years ago
Grammar
Statute grammar
Hi all
I have noticed of late that many statutes/laws are crafted in this fashion:
"Nothing is an offence which is done by a person under eight years of age."
Such a sentence seems ungrammatical and it seems that clarity was the only reason why the sentence was constructed that way. It seems to me that this version is more correct:
"Nothing done by a person under eight years of age is an offence."
Am I right in saying that the first sentence is ungrammatical?
Thanks a bunch!
I have noticed of late that many statutes/laws are crafted in this fashion:
"Nothing is an offence which is done by a person under eight years of age."
Such a sentence seems ungrammatical and it seems that clarity was the only reason why the sentence was constructed that way. It seems to me that this version is more correct:
"Nothing done by a person under eight years of age is an offence."
Am I right in saying that the first sentence is ungrammatical?
Thanks a bunch!
Top answer
" Such a sentence seems ungrammatical and it seems that clarity was the only reason why the sentence was constructed that way. " Yes, definitely. Am I right in saying that the first sentence is ungrammatical?
- " Such a sentence seems ungrammatical and it seems that clarity was the only reason why the sentence was constructed that way.
- " Yes, definitely.
- Am I right in saying that the first sentence is ungrammatical?
- It doesn't seem ungrammatical to me.
- Why do you think it is?
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
Hi,
I have noticed of late that many statutes/laws are crafted in this fashion:
"Nothing is an offence which is done by a person under eight years of age."
Such a sentence seems ungrammatical and it seems that clarity was the only reason why the sentence was constructed that way. It seems to me that this version is more correct:
"Nothing done by a person under
I have noticed of late that many statutes/laws are crafted in this fashion:
"Nothing is an offence which is done by a person under eight years of age."
Such a sentence seems ungrammatical and it seems that clarity was the only reason why the sentence was constructed that way. It seems to me that this version is more correct:
"Nothing done by a person under
00
Hi Clive,
Thanks for answering. I don't quite know how to say it; it just sounds and feels wrong. Perhaps it just does not make sense?
Say for example there is a name for offences committed by persons under the age of eight; let's call it "juvenile offences". You could therefore say:
"Juvenile offences are offences which are done by a person under eight years of age."
Thanks for answering. I don't quite know how to say it; it just sounds and feels wrong. Perhaps it just does not make sense?
Say for example there is a name for offences committed by persons under the age of eight; let's call it "juvenile offences". You could therefore say:
"Juvenile offences are offences which are done by a person under eight years of age."
00
Hi,
Yes, it's the meaning, rather than the grammar, that is incorrect.
Clive
Yes, it's the meaning, rather than the grammar, that is incorrect.
Clive
00
Hi Clive,
Then could you explain why such sentences are still commonly used in statutes and laws?
Thanks.
SJ
Then could you explain why such sentences are still commonly used in statutes and laws?
Thanks.
SJ
00
Hi,
As a non-lawyer, I wouldn't even attempt to explain why legal English is the way it is.
As a non-lawyer, I wouldn't even attempt to explain why legal English is the way it is.
0
Related Questions