It looks like you’re using an ad blocker.

Would you like to support LEO?

Disable your ad blocker for LEO or make a donation.

  • Forum home

    Language lab

    declare + gerund or infinitive?


    declare + gerund or infinitive?

    Liebes Forum, ich bin gerade zu blöd zum Suchen, das hat doch bestimmt schon einmal jemand gefragt:
    Verwendet man "declare" mit gerund oder infinitive?

    "X declares having assigned the rights to Y"
    "X declares to have assigned the rights to Y"?
    Authortigger (236106) 11 Apr 16, 11:02
    I would say:

    X declares that s/he (X) has assigned the rights to Y.
    #1AuthorHappyWarrior (964133) 11 Apr 16, 11:08
    X und Y sind Firmen, daher wollte ich ein Personalpronomen vermeiden. Wie würdest du das ausdrücken?
    #2Authortigger (236106) 11 Apr 16, 11:12
    X Company declares that it has assigned the rights to Z Company.

    I'm assuming that "declares" is the right word here? Do you perhaps mean "attests"? Or do you perhaps mean:

    "X Company hereby assigns the rights to Z Company"?
    #3AuthorHappyWarrior (964133) 11 Apr 16, 11:17
    Nein, declare ist schon richtig. Und es geht eben darum, dass die Übertragung schon stattgefunden hat und jetzt noch einmal bestätigt wird.
    #4Authortigger (236106) 11 Apr 16, 11:32
    Ich würde

    "confirms to have"

    sagen. AWWDI.
    #5AuthorB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 11 Apr 16, 11:35
    X und Y sind Firmen, daher wollte ich ein Personalpronomen vermeiden.

    Just to emphasize: The use of "it" to refer to a company, contractor, client, etc. is just fine in English. Deviating from the US Supreme Court's (disastrous) "Citizens United" decision, corporations are not "natural" people/beings and thus have neither a gender nor a sex ;-) -- so "it" is fine, and they won't be offended if you use that to refer to them. ;-)

    "confirms to have"

    If "confirm," then "confirms that it has" (at least in AE)
    #6Authorhbberlin (420040) 11 Apr 16, 11:37
    Englisch ist eh nicht deren Muttersprache. :-)
    Danke jedenfalls für eure Kommentare!
    #7Authortigger (236106) 11 Apr 16, 11:39
    I don't know the context, of course, but "confirms" is less formal (in the legal sense) than is "attests."

    If you are dealing with an affidavit, for example, I'd suggest you use "attests."
    #8AuthorHappyWarrior (964133) 11 Apr 16, 11:44
    I have dealt with legal texts both in German and English for the last two decades, and I don't see anything wrong (or less formal) with "confirm". BTWDIK ;-)
    #9AuthorB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 11 Apr 16, 11:46
    You don't use attests or swears in an affidavit?
    #10AuthorHappyWarrior (964133) 11 Apr 16, 11:48
    In an affidavit, perhaps, but in other legal texts a humble "confirms" is just as good, methinks ;-)
    #11AuthorB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 11 Apr 16, 11:50
    Right, I agree. But that's why I wish the context had been given--we aren't sure if it's for a sworn statement or not. If not, then I agree with you about using "confirms."
    #12AuthorHappyWarrior (964133) 11 Apr 16, 11:52
    Phew, what a relief ;-)

    SCNR ;-)
    #13AuthorB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 11 Apr 16, 11:56
    I want to confirm and reemphasize what hbberlin said about businesses, companies, corporations, etc.

    I didn't realize that it was even an issue in or for German, but in AE a corporation (etc.) is an "it." That doesn't prohibit you from using the companies' names at every point in a document if you want to, but it's not necessary unless there would otherwise be some lack of clarity.
    #14AuthorHappyWarrior (964133) 11 Apr 16, 12:06
    Well, in German it is "die Gesellschaft", "die GmbH", "die AG", hence it is always "sie". I think the confusion comes from that.

    I took me some getting used to, too, to refer to companis as "it" in English.
    #15AuthorB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 11 Apr 16, 12:10
    OK. Thanks for the explanation.
    #16AuthorHappyWarrior (964133) 11 Apr 16, 12:11
    I don't think 'declare' can be used either with an infinitive or a gerund, but I see no problem with the use of 'declare' in the OP sentence. Only it should be followed by a 'that' clause.
    #17Authorescoville (237761) 11 Apr 16, 12:13
    Vielen Dank für eure weiteren Diskussionen! Mehr Kontext möchte ich hier nicht ausbreiten, aber ich werde eure Kommentare entsprechend verwerten. Ihr habt mir für dieses Dokument und auch für zukünftige Arbeit sehr geholfen.
    #18Authortigger (236106) 11 Apr 16, 12:22
    #12: Do companies provide sworn statements?
    #19AuthorPipper (917363) 11 Apr 16, 12:24
    Re #19.

    Yes, in America they do on a regular basis--in litigation, for example.

    Re #17.
    There is nothing inherently wrong with "declares," but the right word depends on what the context needs. Declaring something is not the same as confirming something, which is not the same as attesting to something. Of course, tigger will have to make that decision here.
    #20AuthorHappyWarrior (964133) 11 Apr 16, 12:39
    Pipper fragt sich wahrscheinlich, ob eine Firma eine eidesstattliche Erklärung abgeben kann. Das kann genau genommen nur eine Person im Namen einer Firma, nicht wahr? (Nicht mein Kontext, nur grundsätzlich.)
    #21Authortigger (236106) 11 Apr 16, 12:48
    Surely only a proxy can...?
    #22AuthorPipper (917363) 11 Apr 16, 12:50
    But it would still be in the name and on behalf of the company, right?
    #23AuthorB.L.Z. Bubb (601295) 11 Apr 16, 12:54
    In that case, the person's name would appear as declaring or attesting whatever it is, as opposed to the company's name, would it not?
    #24AuthorPipper (917363) 11 Apr 16, 13:08
    Das kommt darauf an, wie solche Dinge im jeweiligen Land rechtlich geregelt sind. Ich kenne Erklärungen aus aller Herren Länder, in der die Firma X sozusagen persönlich irgendwas erklärt, darunter aber natürlich die Unterschriften der vertretungsberechtigten Personen stehen.

    Alle Herren Länder sprechen aber auch originelles Englisch, interessant wäre, wie ein englischsprachiger Jurist das wasserdicht formuliert. :-)
    #25Authortigger (236106) 11 Apr 16, 13:13
    Re #21 - #25.

    Yes, the company's officers and agents have to act and speak for the company.

    For example, let's say that a company, the We Don't Care corporation ("WDC") is sued and that WDC then files a motion for summary judgment--which of course is pre-trial, and indeed has the hope and purpose of winning without having to go to trial.

    WDC will have to show the court that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that WDC is entitled to prevail as a matter of law. To support its motion WDC must present the facts of the case--which in most cases will be, at least in part, by affidavit. The pertinent agents, officers or employees of WDC will submit affidavits over their own signatures, but clearly and expressly they will be testifying relative to the actions of WDC, the corporation. The caption of the case--Boston Horseshoe Company vs. We Don't Care, a corporation of the State of New York, . . . case number 16-5476 (etc.)--will be atop the affidavit, and it will show that WDC is the party.

    This affiant (corporate officer or responsible employee) will be testifying for--i.e., will be the mouth of--the corporation.
    #26AuthorHappyWarrior (964133) 11 Apr 16, 14:12
  • Pinyin
  • Keyboard
  • Special characters
  • Lautschrift
:-) automatisch zu 🙂 umgewandelt