This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site, while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used. For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
Cookie settings
  1. KudoZ™ Top
  2. English
  3. Linguistics

After having heard the parties,

English translation: You are right

15:19 Jun 26, 2007
English language (monolingual) [Non-PRO]
Linguistics
English term or phrase: After having heard the parties,
the judge ordered ....
Question: why have both "after" and "having heard"? Wouldn't "After hearing the Parties," or "Having heard the parties" be neater and still say it all? Is it a correct structure in the first place?
pidzej
Poland
Local time: 05:45
Selected answer:You are right
Explanation:
..either of those options would be better. The version you have is not incorrect, and you will hear it occasionally, but it is stylistically awkward.
Selected response from:

Jim Tucker (X)
United States
Grading comment
Convinced.
4 KudoZ points were awarded for this answer



SUMMARY OF ALL EXPLANATIONS PROVIDED
5 +4You are right
Jim Tucker (X)
5 +3It is a term of art.
Charlesp
4 +1having heard but not after hearing
Sheila Wilson


  

Answers


9 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 5/5 peer agreement (net): +4
after having heard the parties,
You are right


Explanation:
..either of those options would be better. The version you have is not incorrect, and you will hear it occasionally, but it is stylistically awkward.

Jim Tucker (X)
United States
Specializes in field
Native speaker of: English
PRO pts in category: 28
Grading comment
Convinced.

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
agree  RHELLER: yes it is correct
17 mins
  -> thanks Rita
agree  Ken Cox: From a grammatical perspective, 'having heard the parties' makes 'after' redundant, but it is commonly used (esp. in US English), possibly because it sounds more formal (in my experience, Americans do not like to begin sentences with participles).
48 mins
  -> yes, or it may simply be construed as emphatic I think
agree  Els Spin: Perhaps this construction is meant to stress the 'after' and resultative bits. Sort of: not before we had heard all...? Just guessing!
51 mins
  -> thx
agree  Suzan Hamer
1 hr
  -> thank you Suzan
agree  writeaway: I'd like to see the rest to pass final judgement. I don't see the problem. in any case I've seen far worse drafting....
3 hrs
  -> thanks
disagree  Charlesp: I dont think it is stylistically awkward.
23 hrs
  -> fair enough - thanks.
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

1 hr   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5 peer agreement (net): +1
after having heard the parties,
having heard but not after hearing


Explanation:
I quite agree that the source term is not very nice and I would personally much prefer to see 'having heard' alone.

However, I don't think you could replace it with 'after hearing'. Having heard puts the action in the recent past (ie I've already heard) whereas after hearing doesn't say anything about when (it may be said before hearing anything eg at the start of a hearing the judge could say 'after hearing from the defence, we'll hear from the prosecution') - I can't justify it grammatically but I don't think the two are interchangeable.

Sheila Wilson
Spain
Local time: 04:45
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish
PRO pts in category: 31

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
agree  Can Altinbay
1 hr
  -> Thanks
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

23 hrs   confidence: Answerer confidence 5/5 peer agreement (net): +3
after having heard the parties,
It is a term of art.


Explanation:
"After having heard the parties" is a commonly used phrase which has a particular legal meaning (of course you can change the wording, and it might sort of mean the same thing, but then it wouldn't be the commonly used legal language).

It means, in short, that the judge first considered the arguments (presented orally) to him (or her) before making his (or her) decision. In other words, that he/she gave them (counsel for the parites, as he didn't actually hear the actual parties say anything, as they are not allowed to personally speak to the judge) the chance to make their case, BEFORE he decided the matter.



Charlesp
Sweden
Local time: 05:45
Works in field
Native speaker of: English
PRO pts in category: 2

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
agree  Mark Nathan: it's certainly not wrong
3 hrs
  -> I agree!
agree  Jim Tucker (X): very good point
6 hrs
  -> I agree!
agree  Alfa Trans (X)
7 days
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)



Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.

You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs (or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.

Return to KudoZ list

KudoZ™ translation help

The KudoZ network provides a framework for translators and others to assist each other with translations or explanations of terms and short phrases.

See also:
ProZ.com term search
Search millions of term translations
Close search
Term search
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search