Thereof and the proper grammatical use thereof

Question

I have a pretty complicated question regarding the proper grammatical syntax and use of the word "thereof."

Does it require plural or singular objects in sentence construction? Or does it matter?

Can I say (for example):
"The papers and the words thereof,"
"The paper and the words thereof,"
"The papers and the word thereof,"
and/or
"The paper and the word thereof,"

If I say one rather than another, what is the difference in meaning?
More specifically, with regards to the "paper."

I have a hunch that the object "paper" (would that be the direct or indirect object?), even when used in the plural form, must be thought of in an aggregate sense, as being one object. Would this be correct?

I'm trying to understand a particular legal sentence where both objects in the construction could have an valid aggregate or singular meaning.

CalifJim · Accepted Answer

Serpensthereof

= "of it" or "of them", depending what was mentioned earlier in the text, but not the noun(s) immediately before "thereof".

In your examples, "it" or "them" would be something you haven't even written in your example.

Pay attention to this paragraph, and all the words thereof. (and all the words of it, i.e., the words of the paragraph mentioned earlier).
We'll try to determine the answers to these questions, as well as all the implications thereof. (all the implications of them, i.e., the implications of the answers mentioned earlier).

None of this has anything to do with subjects and objects, whether indirect or direct objects. And none of it has anything to do with whether the noun( s ) immediately before "thereof" are singular or plural. They retain their usual meaning as singulars or plurals regardless of the presence of "thereof".

CJ

Serpens · Answer

CalifJimNone of this has anything to do with subjects and objects, whether indirect or direct objects. And none of it has anything to do with whether the noun( s ) immediately before "thereof" are singular or plural. They retain their usual meaning as singulars or plurals regardless of the presence of "thereof".CJ

The problem that I am having is that both objects in the sentence I am trying to understand could be interpreted in a singular or an aggregate sense, and the exact meaning of the sentence changes entirely depending upon which interpretation, singular or aggregate, is being used.

The first object is written in a plural form, which, when taken straight, could mean several items, but in the document also uses a proper noun written as the same, but both meanings (singular and aggregate) are used in the whole of the document, so trying to interpret according to context is impossible. The second object is a noun which is written in singular form, but could also be understood as relating to the aggregate group rather than the singular proper noun.

Perhaps my examples were bad? I'll try to copy the exact sentence construction for this next example:

"All men fighting or injured in the Holy Lands, and living in the territory thereof, are..."
Where "Holy Lands" in the document would have been used to mean an aggregate of several lands which are considered holy (Holy Lands), as well as a proper noun naming the whole territory comprising the same.

Does "Holy Lands" refer to the whole of the territory as a singular proper noun, or to the several "Holy Lands" in aggregate?
Which restatement would be correct?
"The Holy Lands and the territory that belongs to it?"
or
"The several Holy Lands and that territory which belongs to each one?"

CalifJim · Answer

SerpensAll men fighting or injured in the Holy Lands, and living in the territory thereof

= All men fighting or injured in the Holy Lands, and living in the territory belonging to the Holy Lands

Serpensboth objects in the sentence I am trying to understand could be interpreted in a singular or an aggregate sense

Correct. It's ambiguous, and there's nothing anybody on this forum can do about that.

Only the person who wrote the document can tell you the intended interpretation — unless there is a clear definition elsewhere in the document (or in other related documents) of the term "Holy Lands".

CJ

Serpens · Answer

I see, so there is no hard rule to determine the meaning?

The previous paragraph/clause uses the object in aggregate worded in a clear aggregate sense.
So continuing with the example from before, that sentence would be:

"It shall not exist in the Holy Lands, or any place within their territory."

While the one following is the one previously mentioned;

"All men fighting or injured in the Holy Lands, and living in the territory thereof."

The document in question, in most every other case up until this point, deals with and refers to, the "[Holy Lands]" in it's whole and singular sense, and makes particular, and additional, mention when referring to the several of them as separate entities.
Owing as the distinction between the several separate [Holy Lands] together is made clear in an unrelated statement directly previous, would it would a safe assumption to understand the latter statement in the usual sense as held in every other part of the document, being the singular entity rather than referencing the aggregate?

Thereof and the proper grammatical use thereof

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions