Wed 29 Oct, 2003 10:21 pm
I'd like to hear the info you offered can be found in the reports of AP, Reuters, AFP, or CNN, as well as Peopledaily (if possible). In a word, what I/we need is the info that is reliable or has force adeffect.
It's not grammatically incorrect, but it's phrased a bit ambiguously. I would say:
"I'd like to hear that the information you offered can be found in the reports of AP, Reuters, AFP, CNN, or Peopledaily (if possible). In other words, what I/we need is the information that is reliable or has force adeffect(???? I'm not sure if this is a word or not)."
Comparing your rewriting to the original one, I UNDERSTAND the latter is PERFECTLY CLEAR. The following is the why:
(1) Info = information (info instead of information is commonly used in computer tech field)
(2) In a word = all in all; of course, your rewriting is as good as this.
(3) Force adeffect ( a compound noun, meaning the force of a law that has taken effect)
(4) The first "that" in your rewriting can be omitted.
Anyways, thanks for reply.
As I said, it's pretty good. It's just differences in usage, I guess. I might say "info" to my friends, but when writing stuff I would write it out. When I say "in a word," I usually follow it with a word, not a sentence. The "that" just made it a little less awkward for me when I was reading it.
I agree with Rufio. The "that" helps with clarity.
I'm pretty well-read, and I never heard of "force adeffect"... I'm sure your definition is correct, but is there a way to phrase it in more commonly used words? Maybe... "reliable or covered by laws currently in effect." ? Again, it's accurate, just uncommon and as such, might not be understandable to anyone but a lawyer.
(Now if you're addressing the statement to a lawyer, go ahead and use "force adeffect" -- the lawyer will have heard the term.)
Using commonly used words, rather than using uncommon ones, is a best policy to make our writings or rants able to attract widespread support! :wink:
Some examples of the usage "force adeffect"
(1)Just put the text under the common scanner or camera and get the text content and digital signature information, thus, we can authenticate the text. It is important that the text watermarked can be electronic, scanned ,copied and faxed ,and its force adeffect do not change still.
(2)Our promise can be listed in the terms of the technical agreement or order contract, which has force adeffect. We also offer different types of spare parts and units needed by electric pumps we offered, guaranteeing the failure-free operation of the equipments. ...
(3) The Silence of Legislation Law The 78th clause of Legislation Law points out that, just as what the 5th clause of the Constitution does, constitution has the highest force adeffect, and no laws, governmental regulations, local laws, autonomy laws or special regulations should be unconstitutional.
(4) No member may violate laws of China, relevant regulations and other criterions which have force adeffect. （Five）Membership privacy regulation .
(5)So the regulation had no force adeffect for them. And the draft of the regulation was distributed before they left the company. ... So it had no force adeffect.
If you say so.
I googled it too, and most of the references were to Chinese websites. On one I couldn't find the reference at all, and two of them referred to a single word, adeffect, meaning the effectiveness of advertising.
The Chinese websites used the word (compound word) just as confusingly as you do. If you want to communicate with ordinary English speakers, you should use more common phrasing.
There were other errors in English usage on the Chinese websites too.
Hi Wy, according to what you've found, I would like to freeze in the compound noun "force adeffect" for the time being, and may never reuse it if I could not found it out from any US/UK ect official documents...
There is no such word as "adeffect" and therefore no meaning in the phrase "force adeffect" so don't let's beat about the bush.
Simple expressions are always best, so don't let's look for ways to complicate things.
I just thought of something. Could it be a garbling of the phrase, "force and effect"? I may have heard that used in some legal babble.
I agree with McTag, tho. Let's not look to confuse, but to clarify.