English Style Guide

futurity or contingency is intended, the correct form here is a declarative term using the simple present.

6.21Use of verbs in non-enacting terms. Do not use shall in non-enacting terms, for example recitals or points in annexes. This is because these are not normally imperative terms (but see 6.22 below) and shall is not used with the third person in English except in commands (and to express resolution as in it shall be done). Use other verbs such as will or must as appropriate. Note that this also applies to subordinate phrases in enacting terms, since these refer or explain and do not in themselves constitute commands (e.g. where applicants must/have to/are to [not shall] submit documentation under paragraph 1, …).

Avoid also the archaic use of shall in subordinate clauses to express contingency: use instead the present tense (e.g. if an application is [not shall be] submitted after the deadline, …) or the inverted construction with should

(e.g. should an application be submitted after the deadline, …).

Do not use may not in non-enacting terms to express a prohibition since it will often be interpreted as expressing possibility: use, for example, must not instead.

6.22Instructions in annexes to legislation. While instructions will contain imperative terms, they often contain descriptions and statements of fact as well. For the sake of clarity, therefore, you should use the second person imperative rather than shall for commands:

Place a sample in a round-bottomed flask …

Use must to express objective necessity:

The sample must be chemically pure … (i.e. if it isn’t, the procedure won’t work properly)

SPLIT INFINITIVE

6.23This refers to the practice of inserting adverbs or other words before an infinitive but after the ‘to’ that usually introduces it, as in ‘to boldly go where no-one has gone before’. Although there is nothing wrong with this practice from the standpoint of English grammar, there are still many who think otherwise. One way of encouraging such readers to concentrate on the content of your text rather than on the way you express it is to avoid separating the ‘to’ from its following infinitive.

Note, however, that this does not justify qualifying the wrong verb, as in ‘we called on her legally to condemn the practice’. In these and similar cases, either split the infinitive with a clear conscience or move the qualifying adverb to the end of the phrase.

English Style Guide

THE GERUND AND THE POSSESSIVE

6.24A gerund has the same form as a present participle, i.e. it is made up of a verb stem plus -ing. Strictly speaking, it is a verb form used as a noun:

Parliament objected to the President’s prompt signing of the Treaty. (1)

The use of the possessive form (the President’s) follows the rule for nouns in general, as in:

Parliament objected to the President’s prompt denunciation of the Treaty.

However, (1) could also be expressed as:

Parliament objected to the President promptly signing the Treaty. (2)

Here, though, ‘signing’ is still clearly a verb and is not itself being used as a noun, as it takes a direct object without ‘of’ and is modified by an adverb (promptly) not an adjective (prompt). Accordingly, as ‘the President’ is still the subject of a verb not a noun, there is no reason for it to be in the possessive, despite what many authorities might say.

Note also the slight difference in nuance: the objection is to the President’s action in (1), but to an idea or possibility in (2). This explains why one could write ‘criticised’ in (1) but not in (2), and why ‘does not foresee’ fits in (2) but not in (1).

Although the two constructions in (1) and (2) are therefore clearly distinct, the use of personal pronouns poses a problem. ‘He’ would be the logical choice to replace ‘the President’ in (2), but unfortunately is no longer current English except in ‘absolute’ phrases such as ‘he being the President, we had to obey’. The solution is to use ‘him’ by analogy with similar looking constructions such as ‘we saw him signing the Treaty’ or to use ‘his’ by analogy with (1):

Parliament objected to him/his promptly signing the Treaty.

In such cases, however, the use of the possessive pronoun blurs the distinction between (1) and (2). This means that the latter form can turn up in contexts where it would otherwise not occur:

Despite his promptly signing the Treaty, …

Bear in mind, though, that such constructions often look better rephrased:

Even though he promptly signed the Treaty, …

Despite promptly signing the Treaty, he ….