Timeline for Why does legal English sometimes repeat the antecedent noun after "which"?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 13, 2012 at 9:29 | history | edited | Tim Lymington | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
expanded for edited question
|
| Jul 12, 2012 at 19:21 | comment | added | Barrie England | @talkaboutquality: I've expanded my answer. | |
| Jul 12, 2012 at 19:11 | comment | added | talkaboutquality | @TimLymington, thanks for the correction. Now I see it's the "folder" which is extra. So let's say the speaker thinks it adds clarity -- what clarity is it adding? | |
| Jul 12, 2012 at 19:11 | comment | added | talkaboutquality | @BarrieEngland -- "integrated" but, typos aside, can you say more? | |
| Jul 12, 2012 at 19:08 | comment | added | Barrie England | The last point concerns the difference between an integrated and a supplementary relative clause, which I imagine could have important legal consequences. | |
| Jul 12, 2012 at 19:06 | history | answered | Tim Lymington | CC BY-SA 3.0 |