Does the phrase "to be reviewed and approved by [someone]" indicate that the actor must take the specified actions (i.e., review and approve)?

  • Not in a sane world. Normally the power to approve involves the power to withhold approval. – TRomano Mar 21 '19 at 18:13

Taken literally, and in isolation from any context, the phrase does mean that someone is expected to take both actions. Such reading would, of course, normally be absurd in real life because, as TRomano pointed out in a comment 'the power to approve involves the power to withhold approval'. For this literal reading to make sense, we would have to assume that it is accepted by everybody concerned that the 'review' is only an empty formality, and that it is certain that the approval will follow upon it.

It is more likely that someone who says or writes 'to be reviewed and approved' intends it as a compressed version of something like

[This needs] to be reviewed and [if it turns out to meet the relevant criteria] approved.

or perhaps

[This needs] to be reviewed and approved [if we are to proceed to implement it].

Writing in such a condensed way may, perhaps, be inadvisable in a legal document, but it is probably OK for the purposes of a quick communication among the colleagues who know very well what the review involves.

| improve this answer | |

It's correct. You can say like

These documents have to be reviewed and approved by the manager.

| improve this answer | |

probation says nothing about success. In that sense, one could understand "review and approve" as request to determine judgement, thumbs up or down in the simplest case.

Indeed, German ab-prüfen would rather translate "check-up". Of course that would be a little bit redundant with reviee, but I have no idea how old the quoted phrase or how it is conceived of now. Apparently people are willing to assume quite a different interpretation, and this is well acceptable if -bo < *bhew- was inherently subjunctive.

a- < *ad ("at, towards"; if not ap- "of, from"), would be likewise ... err, indirect, or imperfect, yes. Chucks, now I'm second guessing the whole derivation. Compare perhaps test and attest.

| 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.