Glossary entry (derived from question below)
English term or phrase:
"the same"
English answer:
the items just named
Added to glossary by
Deborah Workman
Dec 19, 2006 14:01
17 yrs ago
English term
Finland
Ihr Kontakt im nördlichsten €-Land
Native in: German 
Works in: Finnish to German, English to German, German to Finnish, and 3 more.
"the same"
English
Law/Patents
Law: Contract(s)
"We also refer to the fact that the content of these instructions is not part of previous or existing agreements, promises or legal relationship or are intended to change the same."
Does this sentence sound a bit strange to you or not?
Does this sentence sound a bit strange to you or not?
Responses
| 5 | the items just named |
Deborah Workman
|
| 4 +2 | as above |
David Moore (X)
|
| 4 +1 | refering to the same as described above |
Hamid Sadeghieh
|
| 4 +1 | the same, +/- OK, but....... |
Lia Fail (X)
|
| 4 | comment (verb error) |
Ken Cox
|
Responses
10 hrs
Deborah Workman
United States
United States
Native in English
&
English
Works in field
United States
Telecom/new media tech, law, bus, mktg
Native in: English
Works in: Spanish to English, Portuguese to English, French to English, and 1 more.
Related KudoZ points
:
24
Selected
the items just named
I agree with the others that "the same" is OK and that there are sloppy grammar errors.
"We also refer to the fact that the content of these instructions is neither part of [any] previous or existing agreement, promise or legal relationship nor is it intended to change the same."
In this case, "the same" = "any previous or existing agreement, promise or legal relationship".
Equating "the same" with "as above" is not incorrect exactly, but it's not precise since the list is not above but precedes in the same sentence.
"We also refer to the fact that the content of these instructions is neither part of [any] previous or existing agreement, promise or legal relationship nor is it intended to change the same."
In this case, "the same" = "any previous or existing agreement, promise or legal relationship".
Equating "the same" with "as above" is not incorrect exactly, but it's not precise since the list is not above but precedes in the same sentence.
Note from asker:
| To me "the same" sounds always like "Indian English". Many Indian people use "the same" instead of "it". But I'm no native. I would have written "these". In fact the sentence comes from the dokumentation of a machine from one of the biggest corporations in the world, and I find it a shame that such a player engages non-native writers for authoring their dokuments. |
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
Comment: "Thanks for your final input, Deborah!"
+1
23 mins
Hamid Sadeghieh
Iran
Iran
Works in field
Iran
Translation Studies, Ph.D Candidate
Native in: Persian (Farsi) 
Works in: English to Persian (Farsi), Persian (Farsi) to English, Persian (Farsi), and 2 more.
refering to the same as described above
"the same", here, refers to "...existing agreements, promises or legal relationship ..."
+1
38 mins
English term (edited):
the same
the same, +/- OK, but.......
I wouldn't have said there was a particular problem with "the same", in ternms of usage, but there is an ambiguity, in fact there are 2.
"We also refer to the fact that the content of these instructions is not part of previous or existing agreements, promises or legal relationship or are intended to change the same."
The "are" is plural, so what is it referring to, as content is singular? I would say it's a lapsus and the writes is treferring to the 'nstructions.
More correct:
A (plural)
"We also refer to the fact that <...> these instructions ARE not part of previous or existing agreements, promises or legal relationship NOR ARE THEY intended to change the same."
B (singular)
"We also refer to the fact that the content of these instructions is not part of previous or existing agreements, promises or legal relationship NOR IS IT intended to change the same."
The plural sounds better. And NOR is required not OR.
As for the second ambiguity:
"We also refer to the fact that the content of these instructions is not part of previous or existing agreements, promises or legal relationship or are intended to change the same."
Does teh 'same' refer to the instructions or to the agreements/promises/relationships? Logically it should be the latter, but even so, the use of 'same' does lead to possible ambiguity.
"We also refer to the fact that the content of these instructions is not part of previous or existing agreements, promises or legal relationship or are intended to change the same."
The "are" is plural, so what is it referring to, as content is singular? I would say it's a lapsus and the writes is treferring to the 'nstructions.
More correct:
A (plural)
"We also refer to the fact that <...> these instructions ARE not part of previous or existing agreements, promises or legal relationship NOR ARE THEY intended to change the same."
B (singular)
"We also refer to the fact that the content of these instructions is not part of previous or existing agreements, promises or legal relationship NOR IS IT intended to change the same."
The plural sounds better. And NOR is required not OR.
As for the second ambiguity:
"We also refer to the fact that the content of these instructions is not part of previous or existing agreements, promises or legal relationship or are intended to change the same."
Does teh 'same' refer to the instructions or to the agreements/promises/relationships? Logically it should be the latter, but even so, the use of 'same' does lead to possible ambiguity.
Peer comment(s):
| agree |
Ken Cox
: hmmm, the writer probably did intend 'instructions' to be the subject of the second phrase, but as you say the sentence construction is incorrect.
5 mins
|
41 mins
comment (verb error)
The second verb (or are intended...) is incorrect: it should be singular to correspond to 'content', and with the given wording and punctuation 'are' should be deleted. Wording such as '..., nor is it intended to modify the same' would be clearer.
+2
46 mins
English term (edited):
the same
as above
But extremely careless in the grammar stakes, which is probably why it sounds odd to you...
It should read:
"...the content of these instructions is not part of previous or existing agreements, promises or legal relationship NOR IS IT intended to change the same (agreements, promises or legal relationship)." ALTERNATIVELY:
"...the CONTENTS of these instructions ARE not part of previous or existing agreements, promises or legal relationship, NOR ARE THEY intended to change the same (agreements etc.)."
It should read:
"...the content of these instructions is not part of previous or existing agreements, promises or legal relationship NOR IS IT intended to change the same (agreements, promises or legal relationship)." ALTERNATIVELY:
"...the CONTENTS of these instructions ARE not part of previous or existing agreements, promises or legal relationship, NOR ARE THEY intended to change the same (agreements etc.)."
Discussion