English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
I've always said things like "If you ate the said candy." and "If you count the said rocks."
I've also heard many people say "If you ate said candy." and "If you count said rocks."
This always sounds to me similar to "If you grab chair." It makes sense sometimes, like in instruction manuals, but you don't hear people say that in real life.
Which one is correct?
When used in this way, said is normally preceded by the. The definite article is, however, sometimes omitted, as in your examples. When a word is omitted, but can be retrieved from a previous part of the text, the feature is known as ‘ellipsis’. In the case of said, it probably occurs mostly in speech, rather than in formal prose, and may sometimes be intended to be amusing. My personal view is that said as used in this way, with or without the, is best avoided. It rarely adds anything useful and almost has the status of a cliché.
Said here is used in the same way that "the, this, that chair" is used. It is used to identify which chair is being discussed.
I could say, "Pick up that chair" or "Pick up the chair" or if somebody had been talking about a chair that, let's say, had a special recline lever and I wished now to refer to it I could say, "Yes, but does said chair [the one you were just saying something about] have a built-in massage function?" I could have as easily said "your chair" or "that chair".
It is often the case that said is used when the object of said is of dubious existence. So if somebody says, "I know of a place where money grows on trees." I might ask, "Oh, really? How do you get to said place?" By which I mean, I agree you've said it exists, but I don't really believe you.
Having said all that, using "the said" together is at least not idiomatic if not ungrammatical.
Legal writing authority Bryan Garner says the following about “the said”:
The said. As used in legal writing, the word said is a Middle-English sibling aforesaid, having the sense "above-stated." Originally legal writers would write the said defendant-and still do in BrE-just as they would write the aforesaid defendant or the above-stated defendant. In AmE, however, the was dropped before said, which has come to act almost as an article. Hence the said seems redundant to American ears, though it was well established at one time. It still occasionally appears in American cases, but more often in British ones: "J.W.T. had induced his wife to furnish him money with which to acquire the said [omit said] property."/ "The transaction resulted in an exorbitant profit to the said [omit said] defendant." (Eng.)
Garner, A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage, 2nd ed., p.779
From Thou Shall Not Use Comic Sans: "I have to be careful here as I don’t want anyone to think I’m out to dismiss design annuals. I love design annuals and as I type this I’m sitting with my back to a groaning shelf—full of the said items."
Listen to how redundant it sounds repeating 'design annuals': "I have to be careful here as I don’t want anyone to think I’m out to dismiss design annuals. I love design annuals and as I type this I’m sitting with my back to a groaning shelf—full of design annuals."
Jim: "Oh, really? How do you get to said place?" sounds ridiculous. No one talks like that. Barrie: It's not about being useful, or a cliché. It's a matter of style.
