Discussion Forum (Archived)
Guest
I am wondering about the correctness of the following construction:
"such as mentioned in this section". It comes to me spontaneously but then the doubt about its correctness/good style comes just as spontaneously.
Here is one example I found while googling (in my case I am trying to use this phrase, or something better, in translating legal texts from French or Dutch):
"the Minister of Education shall have power and shall be deemed always to have had power — to pay to any person who has received a nominal appointment such as mentioned in this section, the whole or any part of the salary appropriate to the position to which he has been nominally appointed, notwithstanding that that person is not or was not actually employed in that position.
(Australia, War Service Rights (State Employees) Act 1945—10.1.1946).
Why not just use "as mentioned in this section" without the "such"? Because then it could sound like what is mentioned is the entire affirmation that precedes (i.e. the power, or the person who has received an appointment...) whereas in fact all the section refers to is the definition of a nominal appointment.
Thanks for any enlightenment on this matter.
It is a bit pleonastic, the construction “such as”, but it could be used to draw a distinction between “as” (that is, of the particular nature of X and nothing else) and “such as” (of a nature similar but not restricted to X). But for dollar-a-word contract writers the more the merrier, right? Seriously though, it could be for extra-specificity so as to avoid any confusion: hence the pleonasm.
Does anything similar occur in the original French or Dutch which should probably be translated wholesale (i.e., literally)? Or would it be clear from the context and not need the “such as”? It can be redundant, but that seems to be the nature of official documents (as well as statements; think of “I hereby proclaim…”). That's my 2¢?or 1¢, anyways.
Martha Barnette
Grant Barrett
Grant Barrett
1 Guest(s)