0

We can say for example:

It suffices to say that...

But I wonder if a similar verb exists that can be used for people(humans), e.g:

He only (...) to explain the first part and skips over the second part, however, I find the second part more difficult. (I want to say: He(the author) has decided to avoid explaining the second part, because he has thought that it's been so uncomplicated_which is not the case about me of course_)

I know that I could say this

He only explains the first part and...

and also this one

He neglects to explain the second part and only explains the first part, however,...

but I feel I've heard another way for saying it too. I'm just trying to figure out if such word exists at all to fill the gap above.

I also found a very close option, which is the phrasal verb "settle for", but it doesn't apply to the example above, because the author has neglected explaining it more because of its "simplicity", whereas "settle for" is used in cases that the person "has not been able" to reach that amount of quality.(E.g: The team settled for a bronze medal.)

Thoughts?

  • 1
    TBH, your question is a bit unclear to me: 'It suffices to say...' means 'It is sufficient to say...' So why does saying 'he thought it sufficient to say...' or 'he thought explaining X would suffice', not meet the case? – Spagirl Jul 18 '17 at 12:03
  • 1
    I'd be tempted by one of these: "He only bothers to explain ...", "He is only concerned to explain ,,,", "He only worries about explaining ,,,", or perhaps if it's less deliberate "He only manages to explain ..." or "He only succeeds in explaining ...". In all these cases, you actually have a choice about where to put the "only", in some cases there are three options: "He succeeds in explaining only ..." or "He worries only about explaining ..." – Steve Lovell Jul 18 '17 at 12:19
  • @SteveLovell Those all communicate something other than the explanation sufficing. They imply that the author is lazy, or has a narrower focus, lacks competence... if M-J really wants something equivalent to 'suffice' surely we need something which related to further explanation not being necessary? – Spagirl Jul 18 '17 at 12:30
  • @Spagirl, M-J certainly might want that. I wasn't sure, which is one reason this was offered only as a comment. My versions are certainly very close in meaning to the 3rd and 4th block quotes in the OP. – Steve Lovell Jul 18 '17 at 12:33
  • 1
    Yes, bothers does tend to imply laziness. You might like deigns as per the comments on @MaxWilliams answer. It has the implication that the person thinks it's beneath his dignity to explain the other item. It can come across as implying he's a bit 'big headed'. To avoid both extremes, I'd use "He was concerned to explain only ...". – Steve Lovell Jul 18 '17 at 14:07
1

"deigned" or "deigns"?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/deign

v. intr. To do something that one considers beneath one's dignity; condescend: wouldn't deign to greet the servant who opened the door. See Synonyms at stoop1.

v.tr. To condescend to give or grant; vouchsafe: "Nor would we deign him burial of his men" (Shakespeare).

You could say "He only deigned to explain the first part...". This is like saying "He only decided to explain the first part", and carries a connotation of disapproval, as if you're implying that he was being lazy to only explain the first part and not the others.

It's usually used sarcastically, as a way of saying "He thinks that it's beneath him to write explanations for everything." In other words, that he is a bit arrogant.

NOTE: I originally wrote "deemed", which isn't right. Thanks to @Spagirl and @SteveLovell for pointing out my confusion.

| improve this answer | |
  • 2
    This seems an odd usage of 'deem'. You 'deem a thing to be something', you don't just 'deem'. 'Deemed the results [to be] unsatisfactory', she deemed [the improvements] to be something he would value. So perhaps 'He only deemed the first part to require explanation' or 'he only deemed it necessary to explain the first part'. As your answer stands it seems as though you have confused it with 'deigned'. – Spagirl Jul 18 '17 at 11:46
  • 1
    @Spagirl. I agree about possible confusion with deigned here. – Steve Lovell Jul 18 '17 at 12:35
  • 1
    @Spagirl you might be right about the confusion. – Max Williams Jul 18 '17 at 13:02
  • 2
    @MaxWilliams Cheers. Are you leaving the answer as it stands? – Spagirl Jul 18 '17 at 14:14
  • sigh...I suppose not....will edit. – Max Williams Jul 19 '17 at 7:41
0

Two possibilities come to mind:

"He omits an explanation for the first part."

To leave out or exclude (someone or something), either intentionally or forgetfully. "a significant detail was omitted from your story"

"He takes for granted that the first part requires no explanation."

To assume that something is true without questioning it. "those companies challenged beliefs that everyone else took for granted"

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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