Re[2]: Word use: Express/ed (Absurd

[Carma C Allen <ccallen -at- CCGATE -dot- DP -dot- BECKMAN -dot- COM>]

Arlen writes:
>(BTW, in case you haven't guessed, I think the word is "express" rather than
>"expresed," and that...

William Hartzer replied:
>Arlen, you're wrong.  Look at the original sentence again!  The statement says
>that you (or anyone else) may not copy it unless you have the written consent
>or the (author).  If you (or anyone else) are copying it(thus you have
>RECEIVED permission from the author prior to your using it), you have received
>the EXPRESSED written consent of the author.

>The emphasis here is WHEN exactly you received the consent of the author.  You
>may use it IF you have the expressED permission (the expressing was done in
the past because you are using it now).

>If you look again, Arlen, you'll see that the official legal statement is
>gramatically correct,  based on when the consent is given by the author.

>As you remember, Arlen, we use the past tense (like -ED at the and of words)
>to express things that happened in the past.  (No pun intended).

********************************

But the emphasis ISN'T on when the consent was given--the usage is of the word
"express" as an adjective, not a verb:

    Am. Heritage Dictionary
    "Particular; specific; precise; explicit, clear-cut, categorical,
unambiguous, unequivocal"

The author is giving express (particular and specific) consent for the specific
use.

Carma