T.O.
I don't remember saying "I don't disagree". This is not the same as saying that I agree to disagree which I have said. However, "I don't disagree" is not necessarily indicative of a positive statement. It can mean that one remains to be convinced.
I am amazed that you consider American English not to contain double negatives. With true English, if double negatives are used, one can determine the meaning by logic alone (similar to multiplication of negative numbers). However, American English is infamous for its double negatives which remain negative, e.g. "I ain't never going there", thus defying logic for the pursuit of emphasis.
Laurence
Contrasting UK and US views of the controversial Banco Santa
-
larryBacon
- Posts: 689
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:26 pm
-
hatemshehab
- Posts: 220
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:19 pm
Contrasting UK and US views of the controversial Banco Santa
Use Of Negatives:
First of all we should note that British English does not encourage the use of double negatives. The example of “I don’t disagree” does not mean that the speaker is in “comfortable” agreement, however he is at the same time not in disagreement. He is exactly in less that a full agreement. The phrase suggest a possibility that yes I could agree but I am not hundred percent sure.
Therefore a double negative in one sentence is confusing and grammatically incorrect. We should not say:
“I don’t have no money”
The correct usage is
“I don’t have any money” or “I have no money”
In two different clauses in the same sentence, negatives cause no problems;
A person who doesn’t have love can’t be truly happy.
I don’t know why he isn’t here.
Subjective Tense:
A subjunctive “tense” uses the simple form of a verb. This verb does not have present, past or future forms; it is neither singular nor plural. Sentences with subjective verbs generally stress importance or urgency and they are used in that-clauses that follow the verbs and expressions listed here:
- be
- pay, go
- be + past participle (this is for passive)
Examples:
- The judge demands that we be on time.
- I insisted that the issuing bank the invoice.
- I recommended that he not go to the training.
- It is important that they be told the verdict.
The use of subjunctive is more common in American English than British English. In British English, should + simple form is more usual than subjunctive.
- The judge insists that we should be on time.
Santander Case:
“I further accept that the liability of Santander and Paribas under the letter of credit was joint and several (see the same paragraph). But IT DOES NOT FOLLOW where as in the instant case there is a joint and several liability, and it is the intention of the parties to the assignment to keep alive the obligation which is joint and several, that THAT CANNOT BE ACHIEVED BY AN ASSIGNMENT BY THE OBLIGEE (IN THIS CASE BAYFERN) TO ONE OF THE JOINT AND SEVERAL CONTRACTORS, OF HIS RIGHTS AGAINST BOTH JOINT AND SEVERAL CONTRACTORS”.
The use of “double negative” suggests that it could be achieved but not will be achieved. Therefore the wording here does not mean firmly positive but rather “could” as the judge may be looking for other facts, events or the like to prove this possibility.
First of all we should note that British English does not encourage the use of double negatives. The example of “I don’t disagree” does not mean that the speaker is in “comfortable” agreement, however he is at the same time not in disagreement. He is exactly in less that a full agreement. The phrase suggest a possibility that yes I could agree but I am not hundred percent sure.
Therefore a double negative in one sentence is confusing and grammatically incorrect. We should not say:
“I don’t have no money”
The correct usage is
“I don’t have any money” or “I have no money”
In two different clauses in the same sentence, negatives cause no problems;
A person who doesn’t have love can’t be truly happy.
I don’t know why he isn’t here.
Subjective Tense:
A subjunctive “tense” uses the simple form of a verb. This verb does not have present, past or future forms; it is neither singular nor plural. Sentences with subjective verbs generally stress importance or urgency and they are used in that-clauses that follow the verbs and expressions listed here:
- be
- pay, go
- be + past participle (this is for passive)
Examples:
- The judge demands that we be on time.
- I insisted that the issuing bank the invoice.
- I recommended that he not go to the training.
- It is important that they be told the verdict.
The use of subjunctive is more common in American English than British English. In British English, should + simple form is more usual than subjunctive.
- The judge insists that we should be on time.
Santander Case:
“I further accept that the liability of Santander and Paribas under the letter of credit was joint and several (see the same paragraph). But IT DOES NOT FOLLOW where as in the instant case there is a joint and several liability, and it is the intention of the parties to the assignment to keep alive the obligation which is joint and several, that THAT CANNOT BE ACHIEVED BY AN ASSIGNMENT BY THE OBLIGEE (IN THIS CASE BAYFERN) TO ONE OF THE JOINT AND SEVERAL CONTRACTORS, OF HIS RIGHTS AGAINST BOTH JOINT AND SEVERAL CONTRACTORS”.
The use of “double negative” suggests that it could be achieved but not will be achieved. Therefore the wording here does not mean firmly positive but rather “could” as the judge may be looking for other facts, events or the like to prove this possibility.
Contrasting UK and US views of the controversial Banco Santa
Dear Laurence,
By saying American Englsih does not use double negatives, we actually mean in writing, not in verbal communication. We do see a lot of double negatives in Hollywood films but rarely in US writings. We are sorry that we have not made this clear for the first time.
You are right that you never said "I don't disagree". You have said only "I agree to disagree" to our friend Jeremy. Hence we have already amended our previous posting to correct his mistake of which please accept our apologies.
Some foreign traders we met told us that they could not understand the real intention of some older generation Japanese business men because they always say "yes" even if they disagree. In Japanese culture, it is impolite to say "No" to another person, particularly he or she is not very close to oneself.
We also know that Englishmen have other forms of subtle expression of their feelings such as "Yes ...but..." which may be very useful sometimes.
http://ww.tolee.com
[edited 12/8/01 5:13:19 PM]
By saying American Englsih does not use double negatives, we actually mean in writing, not in verbal communication. We do see a lot of double negatives in Hollywood films but rarely in US writings. We are sorry that we have not made this clear for the first time.
You are right that you never said "I don't disagree". You have said only "I agree to disagree" to our friend Jeremy. Hence we have already amended our previous posting to correct his mistake of which please accept our apologies.
Some foreign traders we met told us that they could not understand the real intention of some older generation Japanese business men because they always say "yes" even if they disagree. In Japanese culture, it is impolite to say "No" to another person, particularly he or she is not very close to oneself.
We also know that Englishmen have other forms of subtle expression of their feelings such as "Yes ...but..." which may be very useful sometimes.
http://ww.tolee.com
[edited 12/8/01 5:13:19 PM]
Contrasting UK and US views of the controversial Banco Santa
To illustrate how complicated and difficult to understand legal English can become, we would like to quote the “Both-to-Blame Collision Clause” popular in bills of lading as follows:
BOTH-TO- BLAME COLLISION CLAUSE IN B/L
QUOTE
If the Vessel comes into collision with another ship as a result of the negligence of the other ship and any act, neglect or default of the Master, Mariner, Pilot or the servants of the Carrier in the navigation or in the management of the Vessel, the owners of the cargo carried hereunder will indemnify the Carrier against all losses or liability to the other or non-carrying ship or her owners in so far as such loss or liability represents losses of, or damage to, or any claim whatsoever of the owners of the said cargo, paid or payable by the other or non-carrying ships or her owners to the owners of said cargo, and set-off, recouped or recovered by the other or non-carrying ship or her owners as part of their claim against the carrying Vessel or Carrier. The foregoing provisions shall also apply where the owners, operators or those in charge of any ship or ships or objects other than, or in addition to, the colliding ships or objects are at fault in respect of a collision contact.
UNQUOTE
We think that one of the reasons for this sort of writing is to confuse the parties, such as the shipper, the consignee and the holder of the bill of lading so that they do not know what exactly this clause really means. Then it may be difficult for them to enforce their rights in claiming on the shipowners unless they hire the experts and the maritime lawyers.
It is difficult for us to explain this clause solely relying on written form. We have to use charts assisted by verbal description and on-the-spot clarification of queries from the floor. For those past participants of our transport documents workshops from Asia and the Middle East, they may make this attempt if they have confidence to do so.
Jeremy, we think that this clause is more difficult to understand, as far as a layman is concerned, than the judicial decision of the Santander case. And writing such legal English is also an art. That is also why the fees charged by the top gun class maritime lawyers are very high.
http://www.tolee.com
[edited 12/9/01 4:14:18 PM]
BOTH-TO- BLAME COLLISION CLAUSE IN B/L
QUOTE
If the Vessel comes into collision with another ship as a result of the negligence of the other ship and any act, neglect or default of the Master, Mariner, Pilot or the servants of the Carrier in the navigation or in the management of the Vessel, the owners of the cargo carried hereunder will indemnify the Carrier against all losses or liability to the other or non-carrying ship or her owners in so far as such loss or liability represents losses of, or damage to, or any claim whatsoever of the owners of the said cargo, paid or payable by the other or non-carrying ships or her owners to the owners of said cargo, and set-off, recouped or recovered by the other or non-carrying ship or her owners as part of their claim against the carrying Vessel or Carrier. The foregoing provisions shall also apply where the owners, operators or those in charge of any ship or ships or objects other than, or in addition to, the colliding ships or objects are at fault in respect of a collision contact.
UNQUOTE
We think that one of the reasons for this sort of writing is to confuse the parties, such as the shipper, the consignee and the holder of the bill of lading so that they do not know what exactly this clause really means. Then it may be difficult for them to enforce their rights in claiming on the shipowners unless they hire the experts and the maritime lawyers.
It is difficult for us to explain this clause solely relying on written form. We have to use charts assisted by verbal description and on-the-spot clarification of queries from the floor. For those past participants of our transport documents workshops from Asia and the Middle East, they may make this attempt if they have confidence to do so.
Jeremy, we think that this clause is more difficult to understand, as far as a layman is concerned, than the judicial decision of the Santander case. And writing such legal English is also an art. That is also why the fees charged by the top gun class maritime lawyers are very high.
http://www.tolee.com
[edited 12/9/01 4:14:18 PM]