Tell me more ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote -1 down vote favorite

I am creating a document that has the following sentence:

We wish to confirm that this amount has been processed and enclosed is a cheque totalling $15,000.00.

From my point of view, using the word is seems grammatically incorrect. I'm thinking it should either be in or as,but I am not 100% sure.

Maybe the problem is that there is some punctuation missing?

We wish to confirm that this amount has been processed; enclosed is a cheque totalling $15,000.00.

Perhaps this sentence should be broken into two sentences?

  1. We wish to confirm that this amount has been processed.
  2. We have enclosed a cheque with an amount totalling $15,000.00

What is the correct way to write this sentence?

share|improve this question
1  
Use two sentences. They don't have anything to do with each other. Also, it should be a check/cheque for $15,000.00. You don't need totaling because there's only one; you don't need to add anything up to arrive at a total. – Jim Mar 13 at 5:32
I've encountered enclosed please find in this context. You can also use enclosed herewith is —herewith is a fairly unusual word since this exact case is its only common use. – Andrew Lazarus Mar 13 at 6:05
The sentence is grammatical, semantically correct and very common in business writing. – Kris Mar 13 at 6:29
1  
@Kris: Are you contending it should be read, "We wish to confirm that (this amount has been processed) and (enclosed is a cheque totalling $15,000.00)." That is, they are confirming those two things? That's about the only way I can see it as grammatical. But why would they send me a letter to confirm that this very letter includes a check? I mean, it's possible. If you contend it's grammatical, please tell me how you think it should be parsed. If you attach "confirm" only to "processed", the only form that makes logical sense, it become ungrammatical. – David Schwartz Mar 13 at 7:39
1  
I'm not entirely convinced that this is a language question. It seems like a proofreading request. Can you clarify what is not grammatical about the sentence? – KitFox♦ Mar 13 at 16:37
show 3 more comments

closed as off topic by tchrist, Kristina Lopez, aedia λ, coleopterist, MετάEd Mar 14 at 15:51

Questions on English Language & Usage Stack Exchange are expected to relate to English language and usage within the scope defined in the FAQ. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about closed questions here.

2 Answers

up vote 1 down vote accepted

The sentence is awkward because it's two sentences conjoined into one. Change it from:

We wish to confirm that this amount has been processed and enclosed is a cheque totalling $15,000.00.

to

We wish to confirm that this amount has been processed. A {check / bank draft / bank check / cashier's check / cheque [CHOOSE ONE]} {for / in the amount of [CHOOSE ONE]} $15,000.00 is enclosed.

The revised second sentence offers both plain English and business-speak versions that go with the business-speak of the first sentence.

share|improve this answer
Thanks Bill, I think I'll go with your recommendation on this one. – mezoid Mar 13 at 21:51
up vote 1 down vote

The sentence is missing a comma, which causes it to be very hard to parse.

A reader sees "We wish to confirm that this amount has been processed and enclosed" and parses "processed and enclosed" as a unit. When they get to "is a cheque", they try to reparse it to "enclosed is a cheque", but now they're not sure how the first part and the second part of the sentence go together because there's no point at which they can meet.

To correct it, put in the comma: "We wish to confirm that this amount has been processed, and enclosed is a cheque totaling $15,000.00." Now it's clear that the two halves of the meaning of the sentence split at the "and" and it's not possible to group "processed and enclosed" into a unit.

This still might be a bit awkward though, depending on the context. If it is, just split it into two sentences. Also, I'd say "for $15,000.00" rather than "totaling". It seems odd to me for one thing to "total" to something. (Or "in the amount of", as Bill Franke suggests.)

share|improve this answer
-1 That is not about grammar, though. These corrections do not help improve readability either. See also my comment at OP above. – Kris Mar 13 at 6:30
4  
@Kris: You're flat-out wrong about this question. You don't have a clue what it's about. Syntax is one subdivision of grammar. The syntax isn't optimal, & the writing mechanics (punctuation, in this case) are wrong. David's right: stick in the comma he suggests, & the S is easier to read & understand without having to consciously & re-parse parse the sentence. Split it into two sentences, & the syntactic as well as the punctuation problem disappears. That bad writers of business-speak use this kind of shitenglish is no excuse to rationalize it away as acceptable, as you seem to want to. – Bill Franke Mar 13 at 7:16
2  
@Kris: I see a lot of assertions but frankly, I can't tell why you are asserting any of those things. And I definitely disagree with your claim that my changes don't improve readability. I'm a native speaker and former CTO of a tech company and I had to guess what the original sentence meant. I presented a detailed walkthrough of what actually happened when I tried to understand it and precisely how it was confusing. – David Schwartz Mar 13 at 7:33
@DavidSchwartz "This still might be a bit awkward though" was not my assertion -- and is what prompted my comment "These corrections do not help improve readability either." HTH. I know many who are familiar and comfortable with the usage as in OP's example. You are welcome to ask any more clarifications. – Kris Mar 13 at 12:24
Thanks David, I appreciate your response even though I'll be going with Bill's answer. – mezoid Mar 13 at 21:52

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.