In a business letter
Learner
"I send herewith two copies of the document .... "
What is the correct usage?
Thanx.
bert
"I enclose two copies ..."
or
"Please find enclosed two copies ..."
--
Leslie Danks
I would write "I enclose two copies of the document". "Herewith" is mostly
found in legal documents and similar.
--
Les (BrE)
HVS
> "I'm sending herewith two copies of the document ..... "
> "I send herewith two copies of the document .... "
>
> What is the correct usage?
It's a stylistic issue rather than a matter of correct usage; the
second is better in my opinion.
That said, a few points:
- In modern business letters, "herewith" (and similar words like
heretofore and hereunder) should be avoided -- they're overly formal
and legalistic, and strike me as archaic as "I remain, Sir, your most
obedient servant", or using "inst." and "ult." when referring to this
or last month.
- Even if one allows "herewith", in the first version the informality
of "I'm" clashes badly with the formality of "herewith"; either be
formal or informal, but don't mix them up.
- "I enclose two copies" would be my preferred form.
--
Cheers, Harvey
CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed
Eric Walker
[...]
> - In modern business letters, "herewith" (and similar words like
> heretofore and hereunder) should be avoided -- they're overly formal and
> legalistic, and strike me as archaic as "I remain, Sir, your most
> obedient servant", or using "inst." and "ult." when referring to this or
> last month. . . .
I disagree. There are two sorts of forms here; I concur that floral and
florid openings and closings, and needless stylized abbreviations are not
wanted (and never really were), but words are words.
When a word that is not clearly archaic is the simplest accurate word for
a meaning, it should be used. Terms like herewith, therewith,
heretofore, theretofore, hereunder, thereunder, aforesaid, and the rest
of that lot are generally clear and exact, which is exactly why one finds
them so often in legal documents, whose chief goal is (all sarcasms
aside) exactness and accuracy. One needn't stretch for opportunities to
use them, but neither need one contort to avoid them.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker, Owlcroft House
http://owlcroft.com/english/
HVS
I have no argument with using legally-precise terms in a legal
document: as you say, legalese exists for a good reason, and its
frequent blanket disparagement is misguided.
There is, however, no advantage I can see to adopting legally-
appropriate terms in everyday, modern business usage -- except
where it's absolutely essential, and it's only ever absolutely
essential in legal letters rather than standard correspondence.
I agree that one shouldn't contort to avoid the terms, but off the
top of my head I can't think of any cases where avoiding them would
lead to such contortion.
"I enclose two copies" is surely not a contorted way of writing "I
send herewith"; similarly, "Until now, our policy has been..." is
not a contortion of "Heretofore our policy has been..."; and "The
receipt enclosed with my letter of 10th September" is, in my view,
vastly preferable to "My letter of 10th September and the receipt
sent therewith".
Cheryl
I'd use "I enclose two copies". I had an English teacher who argued
against 'Please find enclosed..." on the grounds that if you put them
in, the recipient could hardly fail to find them.
'Herewith' is very formal by today's standards.
Someone else mentioned the contraction - I was taught that I should
never use contractions in writing - or at least, in writing of even a
minimal level of formality. I suppose contractions were excused in
fictional dialogue.
I find myself disobeying this rule more and more. I wonder if the rule
is becoming a bit old-fashioned, or am I become more relaxed in my
English? I would still avoid a contraction in a business letter, but now
I have to make an effort to remember to do so.
--
Cheryl
HVS
The problem with the OP's "I'm sending herewith" isn't the use of
the contraction; I wouldn't use it, but I agree that contractions
are in the process of becoming acceptable for what might be called
"informal formal correspondence". What doesn't work is that the
contraction goes "CLANG" when used with something as legalistic and
formal as "herewith".
One or t'other, but not both...
Cheryl
ever used "herewith", even in a formal business letter. I may be
slipping into the habit of using contractions in formal writing, though
I didn't in the past.
\
--
Cheryl
Default User
I would tend to say, "I am enclosing two copies of the document."
Brian
--
Day 232 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project
Mark Brader
>> - In modern business letters, "herewith" (and similar words like
>> heretofore and hereunder) should be avoided -- they're overly formal
>> and legalistic, and strike me as archaic as "I remain, Sir, your most
Eric Walker:
> I disagree.
Then you're wrong, because Harvey's got it exactly right.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "I can't tell from this... whether you're
m...@vex.net | a wise man or a wise guy." --Ted Schuerzinger
JimboCat
> bert wrote:
> > On 22 Sep, 11:18, Learner <pamudith...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> "I'm sending herewith two copies of the document ..... "
> >> "I send herewith two copies of the document .... "
>
> >> What is the correct usage?
>
> > "I enclose two copies ..."
>
> > or
>
> > "Please find enclosed two copies ..."
> > --
>
> I'd use "I enclose two copies". I had an English teacher who argued
> against 'Please find enclosed..." on the grounds that if you put them
> in, the recipient could hardly fail to find them.
In emails, I often use "Attached please find..." It *is* possible to
miss the fact that something is attached to an email! It's not like it
would fall out on the floor or anything. The word order emphasises the
place to look, I suppose. It's habitual, anyway.
When I direct someone to find something elsewhere, however, I always
use "Please find X at location Y", never with the reverse word order.
It would just get too convoluted.
Jim Deutch (JimboCat)
--
"AS THE HOLY BIBLE SAYS THERE ARE MORE THINGS IN HEAVEN THAN ON EARTH,
I AM SO GLAD WE CAN VISIT FAR LONG SPACE JOURNEYS AND I HOPE ONE DAY
WE DO FIND E.TS AND COMMUNICATE WITH THEM TO FIND OUT THERE KNOWLEDGE"
- schumigirl1956
John Kane
> > On 22 Sep, 11:18, Learner <pamudith...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> "I'm sending herewith two copies of the document ..... "
> >> "I send herewith two copies of the document .... "
>
> >> What is the correct usage?
>
> > "I enclose two copies ..."
>
> > or
>
> > "Please find enclosed two copies ..."
> > --
>
> I'd use "I enclose two copies". I had an English teacher who argued
> against 'Please find enclosed..." on the grounds that if you put them
> in, the recipient could hardly fail to find them.
I'd disagee with your English teacher. It is not all that difficult to
not realise that you have not shaken out the large manila envelope
completely.
John Kane Kingston ON Canada
tony cooper
<10313...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>On Sep 22, 7:37�am, Cheryl <cperk...@mun.ca> wrote:
>> bert wrote:
>> > On 22 Sep, 11:18, Learner <pamudith...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> "I'm sending herewith two copies of the document ..... "
>> >> "I send herewith two copies of the document .... "
>>
>> >> What is the correct usage?
>>
>> > "I enclose two copies ..."
>>
>> > or
>>
>> > "Please find enclosed two copies ..."
>> > --
>>
>> I'd use "I enclose two copies". I had an English teacher who argued
>> against 'Please find enclosed..." on the grounds that if you put them
>> in, the recipient could hardly fail to find them.
>
>In emails, I often use "Attached please find..." It *is* possible to
>miss the fact that something is attached to an email!
I can't stand that phrase. Why not just "Attached is..."?
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
tony cooper
There are other ways to alert the recipient to an enclosure.
"Enclosed is..." is one of them. "Please find" sounds like a game of
hide-and-seek is being suggested.
R H Draney
>
>There are other ways to alert the recipient to an enclosure.
>"Enclosed is..." is one of them. "Please find" sounds like a game of
>hide-and-seek is being suggested.
It's a game some of them need to practice...on more than one occasion I've
gotten a note back from some company I sent rebate materials to, telling me I
failed to include some important qualifier....
I now keep copies of *everything* I put in the original rebate request: the
filled-in form, the cash register receipt, the product barcode, and every scrap
of paper describing the terms of the rebate....r
--
A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?
tony cooper
wrote:
>tony cooper filted:
>>
>>There are other ways to alert the recipient to an enclosure.
>>"Enclosed is..." is one of them. "Please find" sounds like a game of
>>hide-and-seek is being suggested.
>
>It's a game some of them need to practice...on more than one occasion I've
>gotten a note back from some company I sent rebate materials to, telling me I
>failed to include some important qualifier....
>
>I now keep copies of *everything* I put in the original rebate request: the
>filled-in form, the cash register receipt, the product barcode, and every scrap
>of paper describing the terms of the rebate....r
Anyone who is careless enough not to notice that a cash register tape
or barcode is not attached, is not someone who reads the cover letter
carefully enough to find your "enclosed please find".
I staple the receipt and the bar code cut-out in *front* of the rebate
form.
Frank ess
R H Draney wrote:
> tony cooper filted:
>>
>> There are other ways to alert the recipient to an enclosure.
>> "Enclosed is..." is one of them. "Please find" sounds like a
>> game of hide-and-seek is being suggested.
>
> It's a game some of them need to practice...on more than one
> occasion I've gotten a note back from some company I sent rebate
> materials to, telling me I failed to include some important
> qualifier....
>
> I now keep copies of *everything* I put in the original rebate
> request: the filled-in form, the cash register receipt, the product
> barcode, and every scrap of paper describing the terms of the
> rebate....r
I assemble that stuff on the scanner, and send the required items
taped to a copy of it--which arrangement I scan for filing of a copy.
Since Costco has changed its rebate process, and I don't spend much on
rebatable items any more, that's just a memory now.
--
Frank ess
Eric Walker
[...]
> I agree that one shouldn't contort to avoid the terms, but off the top
> of my head I can't think of any cases where avoiding them would lead to
> such contortion.
>
> "I enclose two copies" is surely not a contorted way of writing "I send
> herewith"; similarly, "Until now, our policy has been..." is not a
> contortion of "Heretofore our policy has been..."; and "The receipt
> enclosed with my letter of 10th September" is, in my view, vastly
> preferable to "My letter of 10th September and the receipt sent
> therewith".
I don't disagree with those examples, or the general principle of plain
language. My issue was with what appeared to be a blanket condemnation:
"overly formal"; "legalistic"; "archaic"; "should be avoided".
I don't think they're at all archaic, and over-formality is in the ear of
the recipient, which the sender must attempt to judge from afar. I don't
advocate "adopting" terms more often seen in a lawyerly context (but
definitely not "legalistic", in that they do not have specialized, terms-
of-art senses), but sometimes they are the simplest way to say what needs
saying. If the words had no use that could not be conveyed by simpler,
everyday terms, they'd likely have indeed become archaic by now.
Should we, on this model, abandon "therefore"?
John Varela
wrote:
> I now keep copies of *everything* I put in the original rebate request: the
> filled-in form, the cash register receipt, the product barcode, and every scrap
> of paper describing the terms of the rebate....r
I started doing that several years ago and have had to use my copy
when the rebaters lost the originals.
--
John Varela
Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email
Skitt
> R H Draney wrote:
>> I now keep copies of *everything* I put in the original rebate
>> request: the filled-in form, the cash register receipt, the product
>> barcode, and every scrap of paper describing the terms of the
>> rebate....r
>
> I started doing that several years ago and have had to use my copy
> when the rebaters lost the originals.
The rebaters didn't lose the originals. They were just hoping you didn't
save a copy and would go away.
It took me 15 months to get a $75 rebate, and I didn't provide a copy. I
did write to the FTC, though. Funny, how the original turned up.
--
Skitt (AmE)
Peter Moylan
A few years ago the Budget car rental company charged my credit card
an extra $500, which turned out to be the insurance excess for damage
to the car, even though it was undamaged when I returned it. When I
asked for a copy of the workshop repair documentation, it was lost.
The insurance company documentation was also lost. Their own
records of when the car was rented out and when it was
repaired ... well, what do you know, they were also lost. They finally
gave back the $500 when I pointed out that they would need those
documents when I took the case to the Small Claims Court. Needless
to say, I haven't rented anything from them since then.
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
R H Draney
>>gotten a note back from some company I sent rebate materials to, telling me I
>>failed to include some important qualifier....
>
>or barcode is not attached, is not someone who reads the cover letter
>carefully enough to find your "enclosed please find".
>
>I staple the receipt and the bar code cut-out in *front* of the rebate
>form.
I put all the bits in an envelope, seal it, make sure they're all lined up, and
then drive staples through the whole shootin' match...let's see them overlook
*that*....r
HVS
> On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:34:24 +0100, HVS wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> I agree that one shouldn't contort to avoid the terms, but off
>> the top of my head I can't think of any cases where avoiding
>> them would lead to such contortion.
>>
>> "I enclose two copies" is surely not a contorted way of writing
>> "I send herewith"; similarly, "Until now, our policy has
>> been..." is not a contortion of "Heretofore our policy has
>> been..."; and "The receipt enclosed with my letter of 10th
>> September" is, in my view, vastly preferable to "My letter of
>> 10th September and the receipt sent therewith".
>
> I don't disagree with those examples, or the general principle
> of plain language. My issue was with what appeared to be a
> blanket condemnation:
>
> "overly formal"; "legalistic"; "archaic"; "should be avoided".
I fail to see how recommending that one should avoid certain terms
in a specific, and really quite narrow, sub-category of writing --
modern business letters -- constitutes a blanket condemnation of
those terms.
> I don't think they're at all archaic, and over-formality is in
> the ear of the recipient, which the sender must attempt to judge
> from afar. I don't advocate "adopting" terms more often seen in
> a lawyerly context (but definitely not "legalistic", in that
> they do not have specialized, terms- of-art senses), but
> sometimes they are the simplest way to say what needs saying.
> If the words had no use that could not be conveyed by simpler,
> everyday terms, they'd likely have indeed become archaic by now.
Can you give me an example of a typical sentence which one might
find in a modern business letter -- other than a contractual letter
-- where the use of "herewith", "hereunder", or a similar lawyerly
term is the simplest way to say what needs saying?
I certainly can't think of one.
Leslie Danks
> tony cooper filted:
>>
>>On 22 Sep 2009 14:21:42 -0700, R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net>
>>wrote:
>>>
>>>It's a game some of them need to practice...on more than one occasion
>>>I've gotten a note back from some company I sent rebate materials to,
>>>telling me I failed to include some important qualifier....
>>
>>Anyone who is careless enough not to notice that a cash register tape
>>or barcode is not attached, is not someone who reads the cover letter
>>carefully enough to find your "enclosed please find".
>>
>>I staple the receipt and the bar code cut-out in *front* of the rebate
>>form.
>
> I put all the bits in an envelope, seal it, make sure they're all lined
> up, and then drive staples through the whole shootin' match...let's see
> them overlook *that*....r
Half a dozen pop rivets is even better:
<http://www.hansonrivet.com/w01.htm>
--
Les (BrE)
Paul Wolff
>Harvey Van Sickle:
>>> - In modern business letters, "herewith" (and similar words like
>>> heretofore and hereunder) should be avoided -- they're overly formal
>>> and legalistic, and strike me as archaic as "I remain, Sir, your most
>>> obedient servant", or using "inst." and "ult." ...
>
>Eric Walker:
>> I disagree.
>
>Then you're wrong, because Harvey's got it exactly right.
I use it. I regularly write "I file herewith..." because that's what I'm
doing: filing -- lodging with the recipient of my letter, if you like --
a number of documents, which I want to be identified in the cover
letter. I might equally write "I enclose herewith..." for a similar
purpose (though I don't), because in each case the statement is clear
and precise. If I were just to remark in a letter that I was enclosing
something, it wouldn't unambiguously point to where it was enclosed. I
know you can presume that it will be in the same envelope, but as a
matter of record this does not follow. "I am enclosing a number of
documents (under separate cover)."
Eric has my support (where's the jockstrap thread?).
--
Paul
Skitt
> Mark Brader wrote:
>> Eric Walker:
>>> Harvey Van Sickle:
>>>> - In modern business letters, "herewith" (and similar words like
>>>> heretofore and hereunder) should be avoided -- they're overly
>>>> formal and legalistic, and strike me as archaic as "I remain, Sir,
>>>> your most obedient servant", or using "inst." and "ult." ...
>>>
>>> I disagree.
>>
>> Then you're wrong, because Harvey's got it exactly right.
>
> I use it. I regularly write "I file herewith..." because that's what
> I'm doing: filing -- lodging with the recipient of my letter, if you
> like -- a number of documents, which I want to be identified in the
> cover letter. I might equally write "I enclose herewith..." for a
> similar purpose (though I don't), because in each case the statement
> is clear and precise. If I were just to remark in a letter that I was
> enclosing something, it wouldn't unambiguously point to where it was
> enclosed. I know you can presume that it will be in the same
> envelope, but as a matter of record this does not follow. "I am
> enclosing a number of documents (under separate cover)."
>
> Eric has my support (where's the jockstrap thread?).
I don't think that items under a separate cover can be said to be enclosed.
It's a contradiction in terms. M-W Online seems to agree.
--
Skitt (AmE)
HVS
I agree; they're quite obviously neither "enclosed" nor "herewith"
if they're under separate cover.
Paul Wolff
--
Paul
Skitt
> HVS wrote
OK, I'll help:
* Main Entry: en�close
* Pronunciation: \in-'kloz, en-\
* Variant(s): also in�close \in-\
* Function: transitive verb
* Etymology: Middle English, probably from enclos enclosed, from
Anglo-French, past participle of enclore to enclose, from Vulgar Latin
*inclaudere, alteration of Latin includere - more at include
* Date: 14th century
1 a (1) : to close in : surround <enclose a porch with glass> (2) : to fence
off (common land) for individual use b : to hold in : confine
2 : to include along with something else in a parcel or envelope <a check is
enclosed herewith>
Ref.: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/enclose
What other meaning did you have in mind that woud allow for something sent
under separate cover to be considered enclosed.
--
Skitt (AmE)
R H Draney
>
>What other meaning did you have in mind that woud allow for something sent
>under separate cover to be considered enclosed.
Good Friend, for Jesvs sake forbeare
To digg Y-E dvst EncloAsed HERE.
Blest be Y-E Man T-Y spares T-hs Stones
And cvrst be He T-Y moves my bones.
Pretty sure the stone on which this was carved wasn't in the grave too....r
Skitt
> Skitt filted:
>> What other meaning did you have in mind that woud allow for
>> something sent under separate cover to be considered enclosed.
>
> Good Friend, for Jesvs sake forbeare
> To digg Y-E dvst EncloAsed HERE.
> Blest be Y-E Man T-Y spares T-hs Stones
> And cvrst be He T-Y moves my bones.
>
> Pretty sure the stone on which this was carved wasn't in the grave
> too....r
I'd take the stone to be a label for the grave. Wouldn't you? I mean,
really ...
--
Skitt (AmE)
Paul Wolff
The two examples given above will do just fine. Of course something sent
in an envelope or parcel is enclosed. The term does not require two
things to be enclosed together; one thing alone can be enclosed.
To enclose something is to place it and hold it inside an enclosure, or
to place an enclosure around it. I hope I don't have to define
'enclosure' here.
The next question is precisely where, or by what, that something is
enclosed. It may be in an envelope or package, or it may not. If it is
in an envelope, which envelope? It is not compulsory to enclose it in
the same envelope that encloses a letter. If you want to be unambiguous
that the place where something is enclosed is the very same envelope
that encloses the letter, you may need to say as much. Merriam-Webster
is good enough to imply in its example no. 2 that 'herewith' would be a
handy word for this purpose.
In everyday, unimportant matters, we can assume 'herewith' after 'I
enclose', but if you want to create a paper trail that will stand up to
argument then I suggest that you also state where you are enclosing it.
--
Paul
Eric Walker
[...]
> Can you give me an example of a typical sentence which one might find in
> a modern business letter -- other than a contractual letter -- where the
> use of "herewith", "hereunder", or a similar lawyerly term is the
> simplest way to say what needs saying?
>
> I certainly can't think of one.
I'm not good ar that sort of thinking, though I'll ponder it when I get a
few minutes. But Paul Wolff has posted a relevant reply downthread (his
third down from this, mentioning Merriam Webster).
R H Draney
>
>To enclose something is to place it and hold it inside an enclosure, or
>to place an enclosure around it. I hope I don't have to define
>'enclosure' here.
Hey, another janus word!...an "enclosure" can be either the container or the
thing contained....r
Skitt
Aha! You failed to consider the context. Only the second definition is
pertinent to the circumstances. The rest of your post does not fit those
circumstances.
Whatever is sent "under separate cover" is certainly not enclosed with the
message stating that it is enclosed. The rest of your message does not
address the circumstances at hand.
> To enclose something is to place it and hold it inside an enclosure,
> or to place an enclosure around it. I hope I don't have to define
> 'enclosure' here.
>
> The next question is precisely where, or by what, that something is
> enclosed. It may be in an envelope or package, or it may not. If it is
> in an envelope, which envelope? It is not compulsory to enclose it in
> the same envelope that encloses a letter. If you want to be
> unambiguous that the place where something is enclosed is the very
> same envelope that encloses the letter, you may need to say as much.
> Merriam-Webster is good enough to imply in its example no. 2 that
> 'herewith' would be a handy word for this purpose.
>
> In everyday, unimportant matters, we can assume 'herewith' after 'I
> enclose', but if you want to create a paper trail that will stand up
> to argument then I suggest that you also state where you are
> enclosing it.
--
Skitt (AmE)
JimboCat
Dunno.
It certainly varies by my perception of the formality of the
communication. If I'm just sending someone a picture of my cute pet,
I'll probably write "I've attached a picture of Rover." If I'm
sending a file of mission-critical information to my boss, it would be
"Attached please find the information you requested."
I guess I consider it, essentially, lawyer-speak, and use it in
situations where I'm covering my ass with a paper (email) trail.
Jim Deutch (JimboCat)
--
"The trouble with doing something right the first time is that nobody
appreciates how difficult it was."
Eric Walker
[...]
> Aha! You failed to consider the context. Only the second definition is
> pertinent to the circumstances. The rest of your post does not fit
> those circumstances.
>
> Whatever is sent "under separate cover" is certainly not enclosed with
> the message stating that it is enclosed. The rest of your message does
> not address the circumstances at hand.
There are plausible cases that can be constructed. For example, when
returning a defective item for repair or replacement, one often will
enclose in the box an envelope with a letter or form of explanation as to
the problem. One might also enclose something like proofs of purchase;
but in such a case, it is important to have the letter be clear as to
where the "enclosed" proofs are enclosed: in the same envelope as the
letter, or just in the box in which both the item and the letter's
envelope were "enclosed". Saying "enclosed herewith" in the letter is
essential in such a case.
Paul Wolff
>Paul Wolff wrote:
>> Skitt wrote
>:>> Paul Wolff wrote:
>>>> HVS wrote
>>>>> Skitt wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>> be enclosed. It's a contradiction in terms. M-W Online seems to
>>>>>> agree.
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree; they're quite obviously neither "enclosed" nor "herewith"
>>>>> if they're under separate cover.
>>>>>
>>>> Perhaps you would like to consider carefully what "enclose" means.
>>>
>>> OK, I'll help:
>>>
>>>
>>> 1 a (1) : to close in : surround <enclose a porch with glass> (2) :
>>> to fence off (common land) for individual use b : to hold in :
>>> confine 2 : to include along with something else in a parcel or
>>> envelope <a check is enclosed herewith>
>>> Ref.: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/enclose
>>>
>>> What other meaning did you have in mind that woud allow for something
>>> sent under separate cover to be considered enclosed.
>>
>> The two examples given above will do just fine. Of course something
>> sent in an envelope or parcel is enclosed. The term does not require
>> two things to be enclosed together; one thing alone can be enclosed.
>
>Aha! You failed to consider the context. Only the second definition
>is pertinent to the circumstances. The rest of your post does not fit
>those circumstances.
>
>Whatever is sent "under separate cover" is certainly not enclosed with
>the message stating that it is enclosed. The rest of your message does
>not address the circumstances at hand.
I enclose with this letter a certificate of truth, and I enclose with
the letter to your boss a recommendation as to the future employment of
smart-alecs.
I beg to remain, Sir, your most humble and obt. servant.
--
Paul
Skitt
> Skitt wrote:
>> Whatever is sent "under separate cover" is certainly not enclosed
>> with the message stating that it is enclosed. The rest of your
>> message does not address the circumstances at hand.
>
> There are plausible cases that can be constructed. For example, when
> returning a defective item for repair or replacement, one often will
> enclose in the box an envelope with a letter or form of explanation
> as to the problem. One might also enclose something like proofs of
> purchase; but in such a case, it is important to have the letter be
> clear as to where the "enclosed" proofs are enclosed: in the same
> envelope as the letter, or just in the box in which both the item and
> the letter's envelope were "enclosed". Saying "enclosed herewith" in
> the letter is essential in such a case.
"Enclosed" seems quite sufficient, as the enclosure at hand is obviously the
letter, consisting of the envelope and the paper the messsage is written on.
Anything that is *under separate cover* is clearly not enclosed, herewith or
otherwise. "Under separate cover" normally means "in a separate envelope or
package". Combining that with "herewith" is not a fitting choice of words.
It still leaves one unsure exactly what is meant by the "under separate
cover" phrase.
The meaning of "in some sort of enclosure" of "enclosed" does not enter into
this.
I'm not sure of this, but I don't believe enclosing a letter in the box is
allowable. The letter, with its own first class postage, may be attached to
the box, I think. In any case, as you say, it is important to be clear
about where the ancillary material can be found.
--
Skitt (AmE)
John Varela
wrote:
I don't think "herewith" does anything to clarify whether the item
is in the box or in the envelope in the box. If it's "enclosed"
it's in the envelope; if it's in the box then it's "accompanying".
Eric Walker
[...]
> "Enclosed" seems quite sufficient, as the enclosure at hand is obviously
> the letter, consisting of the envelope and the paper the messsage is
> written on. Anything that is *under separate cover* is clearly not
> enclosed, herewith or otherwise. "Under separate cover" normally means
> "in a separate envelope or package". Combining that with "herewith" is
> not a fitting choice of words. It still leaves one unsure exactly what
> is meant by the "under separate cover" phrase.
But if they're all in one box, but the proofs (or whatever) not in the
same envelope as the letter, the proofs were not being sent "under
separate cover". If the recipient wants to know if the proofs were
supposed to be in the same envelope as the letter, or merely elsewhere in
the box (as, for example, if they cannot be found), that "herewith"
becomes crucial.
[...]
> I'm not sure of this, but I don't believe enclosing a letter in the box
> is allowable. The letter, with its own first class postage, may be
> attached to the box, I think. In any case, as you say, it is important
> to be clear about where the ancillary material can be found.
I believe you are correct, though it is, of course, extremely common
practice. But say for the sake of discussion that proper postage was
attached to the envelope (in which case I think--am by no means sure, but
think--that the totality is kosher, even if the envelope was, ahem,
enclosed, not attached on the surface. (Though the legality matters not
to the focus point: Where was the "enclosed" material?)
Amethyst Deceiver
@earthlink.net says...
> >In emails, I often use "Attached please find..." It *is* possible to
> >miss the fact that something is attached to an email!
>
> I can't stand that phrase. Why not just "Attached is..."?
I usually write "I have attached...". Then I get emails in return saying
"oh no you haven't!".
--
Linz
Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford
My accent may vary
the Omrud
> In article <7afib5hv73k38odq4...@4ax.com>, tony_cooper213
> @earthlink.net says...
>> On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 13:04:49 -0700 (PDT), JimboCat
>> <10313...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
>>> In emails, I often use "Attached please find..." It *is* possible to
>>> miss the fact that something is attached to an email!
>> I can't stand that phrase. Why not just "Attached is..."?
>
> I usually write "I have attached...". Then I get emails in return saying
> "oh no you haven't!".
There's some sort of Outlook add-on which scans emails for words like
"attached" and "please find" and then asks you if you really want to
send it if you've failed to add an attachment.
--
David
Nick
My word that would save me and many others so much embarassment.
On the words, I've had emails that the text of the actual email, as
distinct from the attachments, consisted of nothing more than "PSA".
--
Online waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk
development version: http://canalplan.eu