Jun 26, 2007 15:19
16 yrs ago
18 viewers *
English term
After having heard the parties,
Non-PRO
English
Other
Linguistics
the judge ordered ....
Question: why have both "after" and "having heard"? Wouldn't "After hearing the Parties," or "Having heard the parties" be neater and still say it all? Is it a correct structure in the first place?
Question: why have both "after" and "having heard"? Wouldn't "After hearing the Parties," or "Having heard the parties" be neater and still say it all? Is it a correct structure in the first place?
Responses
| 5 +4 | You are right |
Jim Tucker (X)
|
| 5 +3 | It is a term of art. |
Charlesp
|
| 4 +1 | having heard but not after hearing |
Sheila Wilson
|
Responses
+4
9 mins
Jim Tucker (X)
United States
Native in English
&
English
Specializes in field
Related KudoZ points
:
28
Selected
You are right
..either of those options would be better. The version you have is not incorrect, and you will hear it occasionally, but it is stylistically awkward.
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
Comment: "Convinced."
+1
1 hr
Sheila Wilson
Spain
Spain
Native in English
&
English
Spain
20 years producing 100% natural English
Native in: English (Variant: British) 
Works in: English, French to English
Related KudoZ points
:
31
having heard but not after hearing
I quite agree that the source term is not very nice and I would personally much prefer to see 'having heard' alone.
However, I don't think you could replace it with 'after hearing'. Having heard puts the action in the recent past (ie I've already heard) whereas after hearing doesn't say anything about when (it may be said before hearing anything eg at the start of a hearing the judge could say 'after hearing from the defence, we'll hear from the prosecution') - I can't justify it grammatically but I don't think the two are interchangeable.
However, I don't think you could replace it with 'after hearing'. Having heard puts the action in the recent past (ie I've already heard) whereas after hearing doesn't say anything about when (it may be said before hearing anything eg at the start of a hearing the judge could say 'after hearing from the defence, we'll hear from the prosecution') - I can't justify it grammatically but I don't think the two are interchangeable.
+3
23 hrs
It is a term of art.
"After having heard the parties" is a commonly used phrase which has a particular legal meaning (of course you can change the wording, and it might sort of mean the same thing, but then it wouldn't be the commonly used legal language).
It means, in short, that the judge first considered the arguments (presented orally) to him (or her) before making his (or her) decision. In other words, that he/she gave them (counsel for the parites, as he didn't actually hear the actual parties say anything, as they are not allowed to personally speak to the judge) the chance to make their case, BEFORE he decided the matter.
It means, in short, that the judge first considered the arguments (presented orally) to him (or her) before making his (or her) decision. In other words, that he/she gave them (counsel for the parites, as he didn't actually hear the actual parties say anything, as they are not allowed to personally speak to the judge) the chance to make their case, BEFORE he decided the matter.
Peer comment(s):
| agree |
Mark Nathan
: it's certainly not wrong
3 hrs
|
|
I agree!
|
|
| agree |
Jim Tucker (X)
: very good point
6 hrs
|
|
I agree!
|
|
| agree |
Alfa Trans (X)
7 days
|
Something went wrong...