• Sonderzeichen
     
  • Lautschrift
     
 
leo-ende
Werbung
Betrifft

aforementioned abovementioned beforementioned forementioned

23 Antworten    
Kommentar
Can someone please explain to me the differences between these words and when to use them. Or can I use them interchangeably?
VerfasserEmilyErdbeer22 (1010396) 13 Aug 17, 13:43
Kommentar
aforementioned and above-mentioned are interchangeable, depending on the register you want to use.
I would avoid beforementioned and forementioned. I did not research it, but I have never heard them used. Perhaps they are older terms; I don't know, but they sound wrong ....
#1VerfasserRES-can (330291) 13 Aug 17, 18:22
Kommentar
I would say that 'aforementioned' is the only one that is a real word. But it's unnecessarily formal and legalistic, so in most modern contexts you should avoid it.

Instead of 'above-mentioned,' you can just say 'mentioned above,' which will usually sound more natural.

Or in fact, just 'above,' which can go before the noun, but in modern contexts often sounds better after it: See the above diagram / the diagram above.

Or simply phrase differently: the previous section, the preceding argument, etc.

For a person, simply identify them again briefly by name or function: Dr. Smith, Ms. Garcia, the buyer, the seller, the job applicant, the sales manager.


#2Verfasserhm -- us (236141) 13 Aug 17, 19:06
Kommentar
Often it is appropriate just to say "the mentioned (whatever)."
#3VerfasserHappyWarrior (964133) 14 Aug 17, 03:13
Kommentar
To my ears that would be less idiomatic. It would be a little less awkward to put the participle after the noun: the thing mentioned. But for learners, several of the other choices would still be better.

#4Verfasserhm -- us (236141) 14 Aug 17, 06:43
Kommentar
I'll just respectfully disagree.

I think it's considerably better to say that "The suspect drove the mentioned car through the K-Mart" rather than "The suspect drove the car mentioned through the K-Mart."
#5VerfasserHappyWarrior (964133) 14 Aug 17, 07:49
Kommentar
I, too, would not use "beforementioned" or "forementioned" at all, and would only use "aforementioned" in a legal(-ish) context or to achieve a particular effect, e.g. for comic purposes. "Above-mentioned", on the other hand, is perfectly standard from my BE perspective, though I agree with #2 that a simple "above" is often enough.

Re #3's "mentioned": my BE ears also find that at best unusual.
#6VerfasserSpike BE (535528) 14 Aug 17, 08:50
Kommentar
'the mentioned car' sounds thoroughly un-English to my ears, in fact I would call it a Germanism. I would say 'aforementioned' in some formal contexts or jocularly in less formal ones. Otherwise I agree with everything said by hm -- us (#2).
#7Verfasserescoville (237761) 14 Aug 17, 09:35
Kommentar
I'm surprised to see any controversy regarding #3 and related.

First because I have seen "mentioned" used this way by others, and I myself have often used it that way, and I have never detected any confusion or any sort of objection to it. (And I don't understand why there is an objection to it here.)

Second, everyone seems to agree that "aforementioned" is fine. That word means "mentioned before or previously." Of course that is also exactly what "mentioned" means.

Third, I seem to be in good company, including the United States Supreme Court. For example:

Manual Enterprises v. Day, 370 US 478 (1962): "any such mentioned matters, articles, . . .."

Printz, Sheriff/Coroner v. United States, 521 US 898 (1997): "Assuming all the mentioned factors were true . . .."

O'Neal v, McAninch, 513 US 432 (1995): "We recognize that the last mentioned circumstance, 'grave doubt,' is unusual."

Also (id.): "fall in this last mentioned category . . .."

Locke Lokce v. Karass, 555 US 207 (2009): "There was no majority opinion in Lehnert about the answer to this last mentioned question."

San Remo Hotel, 545 US 323 (2005): "It is the last mentioned prong of the high court's takings analysis that is at issue here." (Quoting from 41 P.3d at 101.)

 United States v. Booker, 543 US 220 (2005): "This last mentioned power is not absolute."

AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities, 525 US 366 (1999): "The last mentioned 'unbundling' requirement does not specifically state which elements must be unbundled."

#8VerfasserHappyWarrior (964133) 14 Aug 17, 13:06
Kommentar
To HappyWarrior's points:

1) Okay, it's used. I still find it strange (though not in any way illogical). And 'confusion' was never an issue.
2) If we were to apply this argument generally, we would have to accept all sorts of locutions which are not generally used.
3) The sources, are, shall we say, of restricted provenance.

Native speakers can of course do what they like. My advice to German-speakers is still that 'mentioned' by itself sounds too much like a Germanism to many anglophone ears.
#9Verfasserescoville (237761) 14 Aug 17, 14:23
Kommentar
To me, using "mentioned" instead of "above-mentioned" (and without an addition as in mentioned earlier, mentioned above, mentioned previously...) also sounds (at the very least) unusual. Of course "mentioned" can be used on its own, but not interchangeably with "above-mentioned" (at least, I would not recommend it to non-native speakers of the English language unless they have reached a near-native proficiency level). Most, if not all, of the examples in #8 are such cases in which you would not use "above-mentioned".
#10VerfasserDragon (238202) 14 Aug 17, 14:31
Kommentar
In den meisten Beispielen in #8 steht "mentioned" ja gar nicht nicht allein, sondern als "last mentioned" (letztgenannt). Das ist ganz was anderes als "oben genannt" (above-mentioned).
#11VerfasserMöwe [de] (534573) 14 Aug 17, 14:42
Kommentar
Eben drum.
#12VerfasserDragon (238202) 14 Aug 17, 14:50
Kommentar
First, for my own reference, I want to supplement #8 to this extent:

Manual Enterprises v. Day, 370 US 478 (1962): "any such mentioned matters, articles, or things . . .." Id. at 521 (quoting a federal statute).


Now, re #9: I hope escoville recognizes that I respect him and would not wish to offend him (nor any of the rest of you). But I have to say that "the sources" are of the highest quality--the United States Supreme Court and the United States Congress. It's my opinion that both of those bodies know how to speak English.

Moreover, "aforementioned" is no everyday word. It's used in relatively formal situations--and IMO "aforementioned" comes less naturally to the American tongue than does "mentioned." I see no reason to dissuade anyone from using "mentioned" in this way.

Re #10: I respectfully disagree, and would refer you to the Supreme Court language.

Re #11. I don't see how that makes any difference. Besides, part of my purpose was to address #4.
#13VerfasserHappyWarrior (964133) 14 Aug 17, 14:57
Kommentar
Re #10: I respectfully disagree, and would refer you to the Supreme Court language.

The Supreme Court language, as quoted by you in #8, is fine. See also #11. These are cases in which "above-mentioned" would sound "off" because "last" is used.

Re #11. I don't see how that makes any difference. 

Really? To me it actually makes quite a difference. "The last mentioned XYZ" means that of a group of different XYZs we are now focussing on the XYZ that was mentioned last. If we are talking about "the above-mentioned XYZ", it means that we are talking about XYZ and that this XYZ (which does not have to be part of a group of XYZs) was already mentioned at least once in the same document. 

One could say "the last XYZ mentioned above" (some might argue that this is better style, I wouldn't know about that)  or even "the last of the aforementioned XYZs", which are both basically the same as "the last mentioned XYZ", but "the last above-mentioned XYZ" does not work. And, as explained above, substituting "last mentioned" with "abovementioned" (or vice versa) leads to a change in meaning.


#14VerfasserDragon (238202) 14 Aug 17, 15:47
Kommentar
The question I have been addressing is whether it is proper to use "mentioned" instead of "aforementioned" (or the clunkier "above-mentioned"). The answer is Yes.

And I don't think you have read all of the Supreme Court language. You also seem to have disregarded my last sentence in #13.

Please tell me what principle disqualifies the use of "mentioned" here?

And, as explained above, substituting "last mentioned" with "abovementioned" (or vice versa) leads to a change in meaning.

Yes, that could be true in some cases. But (respectfully) so what? What principle says that "mentioned" cannot be used in place of either "last mentioned" or "aforementioned"? In both cases they have indeed already been mentioned.
#15VerfasserHappyWarrior (964133) 14 Aug 17, 16:15
Kommentar
Happy Warrior, I give up. I do not know whether you are actually unable to understand what other users write here, whether you don't read other contributions properly or whether you are simply stubborn and have decided you don't want to understand. Whatever others tell you is correct and idiomatic English, you come up with something different and insist that this is just as correct and common and then present some results of an Internet search als "proof" that you are right. Usually these examples are either part of different collocations (as in "last mentioned") or different contexts and cannot actually serve to prove your point, but when this is pointed out to you, all you ever do is tell us we are wrong, you are right and we haven't read your contributions properly. This thread is just the latest example. Frankly, I have had enough of it. If you continue to tell English learners that your version of the English language is correct, typical, idiomatic etc. and that those users who say otherwise are wrong, I will (if I agree with the other users) contradict you once but will not engage in any further discussions with you. It's just not worth it.
#16VerfasserDragon (238202) 15 Aug 17, 08:30
Kommentar
Dragon, if you review this thread you will see that I made a simple (true) statement (#3), which was challenged--and so I have responded. You don't like the fact that I persist in telling the truth. Yet, you have now responded four times yourself. Is your persistence therefore hypocritical or merely ironic?

Of course, in your view, I am not allowed to disagree with my "superiors." Only the likes of Dragon are permitted to have and state opinions or insights about the English language. Should I ever disagree with you about what is "idiomatic," it is my "Leo duty" to shut up and obey those (like you) who truly understand English. 

Nevertheless, I do know that the English word "mentioned" is properly used as I have indicated, and I have provided solid evidence for it.

Why should I feign agreement with you if I don't agree with you and your preferences? You are saying it's OK for you to tell me that I am wrong, but it is blasphemy if I respond.

It seems to me that I ought to be delivering your message (#16) to you.
#17VerfasserHappyWarrior (964133) 15 Aug 17, 09:40
Kommentar
*sigh*

H.W., I don't think anyone here is intentionally trying to make you feel bad. It's not personal. But if the only thing that makes you feel good is digging up obscure quotations that don't represent the normal language as most people know it, I'm afraid you're doomed to keep confronting rejection. Maybe you really would be happier elsewhere. (Cultivating your garden?)

Thanks to everyone who has pointed out that most of the citations in #8 were irrelevant because of 'last.' I have to say that the one remaining (#13) still sounds very unidiomatic to me. Again, my personal opinion doesn't necessarily mean anything, nor does that of Dragon or escoville or any other individual. But when all the native speakers who have a certain reputation for seriousness are in agreement, except for one outlier, surely that does mean something.

Back to the original topic.

>>The suspect drove the mentioned car / the car mentioned through the K-Mart.

I believe I can at least explain why neither of those is idiomatic. Let's consider this example.

The car, a 1981 Camaro, had been reported as stolen. It reappeared in police records when a suspect drove it through a K-Mart.

Isn't the simple pronoun 'it' the easiest solution to this non-problem?



#18Verfasserhm -- us (236141) 15 Aug 17, 10:05
Kommentar
verspätete Korrektur:
Aus meiner #11 möchte ich ein überflüssiges "nicht" streichen. Soll heißen:

"... steht "mentioned" ja gar nicht allein, sondern..."
#19VerfasserMöwe [de] (534573) 15 Aug 17, 10:13
Kommentar
Re #18.
Isn't the simple pronoun 'it' the easiest solution to this non-problem?


As I have been saying for a long time now, there are many valid ways to say a thing in English, and your example (in the abstract) might work--but it's not the only way.

Do I understand you to say that "it" can therefore always replace "aforementioned"?


 digging up obscure quotations that don't represent the normal language as most people know it,

That's the falseness that often shows up here. If I don't supply evidence, then I am wrong. But if I do supply evidence (from Congress and the Supreme Court, no less), then that evidence is not normal language.

That might well be considered to be hypocrisy.

Besides, I am surprised that you were not aware of this use of "mentioned." It is normal usage.
#20VerfasserHappyWarrior (964133) 15 Aug 17, 10:17
Kommentar
I'm afraid I might regret writing this, but here goes:

What hm-us wrote in #2 was a very good, full, and helpful answer to EmilyErdbeer22's (nice nick BTW) OP, and could easily have remained the last word on the subject.

In my day to day work, I often proofread English written by people whose mother tongue is German or Swiss German, and one of the most common things which imparts a non-idiomatic feel to their writing is the ordering in phrases such as the mentioned thing instead of the thing mentioned. And so I suggest a correction. I am not saying that mentioned thing is (grammatically) wrong, unheard of, or even not the better way round in some particular contexts, just that in the context of the normal language that I'm proofreading, thing mentioned would be more idiomatic and less likely to cause the reader to stumble. And I think this advice can stand as general advice in answer to a question such as EmilyErdbeer22's.

Of course one can always find counterexamples, and in some contexts, e.g. in legal writing, as in all of the examples in #8, the convention may well be to use phrases in which the word order is not what would usually sound idiomatic, but do we need to drag these up and struggle to defend this usage in the light of such a simple question, thereby risking confusing learners and alienating potentially helpful contributors? If the OP or a follow-up question had asked expressly about the difference between legal and non-legal usage, then one might usefully have entered into the debate, but that was not the case here.

There are probably hundreds of LEO threads where I have thought, yes, well actually that's not the full story, one might also add that X is not always true, but that in such and such a context ¬X pertains. But I ask myself whether it would be useful or helpful in the context of the OP and the way the thread has developed to add any further remarks, and usually I decide that this would not be the case and keep my thoughts to myself.

Perhaps if contributors could be a little less warrior-like in the defence of their opinions, and a little happier to let things be, then their opinions would actually be appreciated more in the end.
#21Verfasseramw (532814) 15 Aug 17, 13:37
Kommentar
I've taken the liberty of copying the following comments made by Dragon, posted in "Re: Leo." I think my answer should come in this thread rather than in Re: Leo. Here are Dragon's comments:

Weder bin ich dein Gegner, HappyWarrior, noch habe ich um Löschung Deiner Beiträge gebeten. Ich habe auch nicht bestritten, dass der Sprachgebrauch in Deinen Beispielen korrekt ist. Das Problem ist bloß, dass die Beispiele nicht 1:1 zum vorliegenden Problem passen. Darauf,  und darauf, dass ich aus meinem Sprachgebrauch (BE, was sich ja durchaus von AE unterscheiden kann) Deine Variante nicht kenne, habe ich hingewiesen. Auf die meines Erachtens fehlende Relevanz Deiner Beispiele gehst Du leider mit keiner Silbe Deiner wortreichen Kommentare ein, und auf eine Diskussion auf dem Niveau von "mimimimimi, die sind alle meine Feinde und keiner will mit mir spielen" habe ich echt keine Lust. Eine Übereinstimmung werden wir also nicht finden. Wenn sich auch nur ein anderer englischer Muttersprachler, egal ob aus den USA, England, Südafrika, Australien oder sonstwo gemeldet hätte und Deinen Sprachgebrauch ebenfalls gekannt hätte, hätte ich sofort gesagt, na gut, dann sagt man das woanders tatsächlich anders, man lernt nie aus. So schaut es aber aktuell nicht aus.

Abgesehen davon kann man zumindest in Deutschland und England aus Verlautbarungen hoher Gerichte oder Parlamentshäuser eher keine Rückschlüsse auf gängigen Sprachgebrauch in der allgemeinen Bevölkerung oder auf von Nichtmuttersprachlern bevorzugt zu lernende Redewendungen ziehen. Vielleicht ist das in den USA ja anders, aber die Schriftstücke, die ich von amerikanischen Ämtern und Gerichten kenne, lassen den Schluss eher nicht zu.


Das Problem ist bloß, dass die Beispiele nicht 1:1 zum vorliegenden Problem passen.

Respectfully, you are incorrect. My examples do precisely address the question, and they show the appropriateness of using "mentioned" in this way. I don't understand why you would say the contrary.

As I already pointed out (see #8): Everyone seems to agree that "aforementioned" is fine. That word means "mentioned before or previously." Of course that is also exactly what "mentioned" means.

And I don't see how you can claim that the following quotes are anything less than directly on point:

Manual Enterprises v. Day, 370 US 478 (1962): "any such mentioned matters, articles, or things . . .."

Printz, Sheriff/Coroner v. United States, 521 US 898 (1997): "Assuming all the mentioned factors were true . . .."

Those quotes are precisely what we are talking about.

Moreover, you can say "the last mentioned (whatever)." They are not different in kind from the foregoing examples. Consider this example:

On page 1 of a document you can refer to a big red bike. On page 2 you could say the aforementioned (big red) bike or you could say the mentioned (big red) bike. Both aforementioned and mentioned denote that the bike was previously mentioned. (I thought I had explained this before; but, if it was not an explicit enough explanation, it's because I thought these concepts self-evident.)

Similarly, on page 3 you could refer to a pine tree, an oak tree, and a maple tree. In the next sentence you could refer to "the last mentioned tree" (i.e., the maple). And on page 4 you could refer to "the mentioned" oak or pine or maple tree(s). It's plain English.

As a separate but related matter, "The last mentioned (whatever)" also addresses #4. (I have already pointed this out.)

Auf die meines Erachtens fehlende Relevanz Deiner Beispiele gehst Du leider mit keiner Silbe Deiner wortreichen Kommentare ein,

I see no reasonable basis for you to claim that what I have been saying is not relevant. It's self-evident, IMO. The word "mentioned" means what it means. It's not a complicated word.

So schaut es aber aktuell nicht aus.

On what do you base that conclusion? Heavens, I have quoted Congress and the Supreme Court. What do you want? That suggests to me that you will have your preference--and derogate anything else--regardless of the evidence.

die Schriftstücke, die ich von amerikanischen Ämtern und Gerichten kenne, lassen den Schluss eher nicht zu.

There is no way I can address that comment, because I have no way of knowing what you have read. I will tell you that the Supreme Court and the Congress know how to use English. I'd say it's quite presumptuous for anyone to reject any usage used by the Supreme Court, on the pretext that "you" know English better than they do. (My comment is not directed solely at you. The same goes for others who seem to think their preferences are better than the mentioned usage by the Court and the Congress.)

I have presented good English here, as did the Supreme Court. And it would be rather arrogant (and a mistake) to claim that the Supreme Court's writing is inadequate evidence.
#22VerfasserHappyWarrior (964133) 15 Aug 17, 14:02
Kommentar
Re #21.

Writing the words "the mentioned dog" (for example) need have no reference at all to a legal text. It's simply English. The OP's question, however, refers to words that often are used in legal contexts--but not exclusively so. If, as I assume, it was OK for the OP to ask about "aforementioned," then I'll maintain the right to say that "mentioned" can be used instead.


Perhaps if contributors could be a little less warrior-like in the defence of their opinions, and a little happier to let things be, then their opinions would actually be appreciated more in the end.

Yes, wouldn't it be nice if EVERYONE were to do that? I am simply responding to challenges. How do I defend my position except by plainness? (Even plain statements are met with claims that I have not addressed the issue?) I notice that you had no objection to the others' strong words regarding me and my position.
#23VerfasserHappyWarrior (964133) 15 Aug 17, 14:22
i Nur registrierte Benutzer können in diesem Forum posten
 
LEO benutzt Cookies, um das schnellste Webseiten-Erlebnis mit den meisten Funktionen zu ermöglichen. Es werden teilweise auch Cookies von Diensten Dritter gesetzt. Weiterführende Informationen erhalten Sie in den Hinweisen zu den Nutzungsbedingungen / Datenschutz (Cookies) von LEO.