Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
trilateral or tripartite
731 views
Skip to first unread message
hhg...@gmail.com
May 22, 2012, 2:39:57 PM5/22/12
to
Hi native speakers.
I need a quick answer to an easy question for you:
are tripartite and trilateral absolutely synonymous?
My particular problem is a business contract.
I'd prefer to call it a trilateral agreement but another translator titled it as "tripartite agreement". Are both equally good?
I need a quick answer to an easy question for you:
are tripartite and trilateral absolutely synonymous?
My particular problem is a business contract.
I'd prefer to call it a trilateral agreement but another translator titled it as "tripartite agreement". Are both equally good?
Horace LaBadie
May 22, 2012, 4:16:10 PM5/22/12
to
In article <773c635d-c75d-4d2f...@googlegroups.com>,
The answer might depend on the jurisdiction in which the contract is
enforceable.
The terms can mean the same thing, but tripartite can sometimes mean
"consisting of three parts." Thus, a tripartite agree could be one in
which there are three main parts.
Trilateral agreement would generally be understood to be something
involving three parties or participants in the contract.
Whichever is used, would not the lawyers expect the terms to be defined
in the first paragraph to avoid any confusion?
enforceable.
The terms can mean the same thing, but tripartite can sometimes mean
"consisting of three parts." Thus, a tripartite agree could be one in
which there are three main parts.
Trilateral agreement would generally be understood to be something
involving three parties or participants in the contract.
Whichever is used, would not the lawyers expect the terms to be defined
in the first paragraph to avoid any confusion?
Whiskers
May 22, 2012, 4:51:50 PM5/22/12
to
<http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tripartite>
tripartite [traɪˈpɑːtaɪt] adj
1. divided into or composed of three parts
2. involving three participants
3. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Botany) (esp of leaves)
consisting of three parts formed by divisions extending almost to the
base
tripartitely adv
Collins English Dictionary
So that's for three parties, or an agreement in three parts.
<http://www.thefreedictionary.com/trilateral>
trilateral [traɪˈlætərəl] adj
having three sides
trilaterally adv
Collins English Dictionary
Which to me feels like a triangle, ie geometric.
However ... it is common usage to speak of a "bilateral agreement" or
"bilateral treaty" between two nations, so by analogy "trilateral"
should be acceptable for an agreement between three parties - if that is
what your agreement is.
It isn't too hard to find examples of "trilateral treaty" or even
"quadrilateral treaty"; but the "tripartite pact" between three of the
nations involved in WWII supports my preferred usage.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
R H Draney
May 22, 2012, 5:22:36 PM5/22/12
to
Whiskers filted:
"quadrilateral" instead of a "tetragon"?...r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
>
>It isn't too hard to find examples of "trilateral treaty" or even
>"quadrilateral treaty"; but the "tripartite pact" between three of the
>nations involved in WWII supports my preferred usage.
Which reminds me of one of my own pet questions: why do we speak of a
>It isn't too hard to find examples of "trilateral treaty" or even
>"quadrilateral treaty"; but the "tripartite pact" between three of the
>nations involved in WWII supports my preferred usage.
"quadrilateral" instead of a "tetragon"?...r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
Iain Archer
May 22, 2012, 6:06:05 PM5/22/12
to
hhg...@gmail.com wrote on Tue, 22 May 2012
My inclination here would be toward "trilateral". I think that's
because it's about just the simple form of the agreement, rather than
making any comment about the parties to it. I think they might be
disinclined to talking about having had tripartite discussions, unless,
perhaps, they represented three very significant bodies. It might
otherwise seem a bit heavy and self-aggrandising.
I see that "tripartite" increasingly outnumbers "trilateral" in the
Google books ngram, and it seems to me the right word when talking about
the involvement of different organisations, or the subdivision of a
system, such as education.
At school we used to have an annual Triangular Athletics match, because
it involved two other schools. I haven't thought about it before, but
it seems to me not a bad choice of term. Even "trilateral" would be a
bit heavy, and maybe confusing. "Tripartite" would be definitely OTT.
--
Iain Archer
because it's about just the simple form of the agreement, rather than
making any comment about the parties to it. I think they might be
disinclined to talking about having had tripartite discussions, unless,
perhaps, they represented three very significant bodies. It might
otherwise seem a bit heavy and self-aggrandising.
I see that "tripartite" increasingly outnumbers "trilateral" in the
Google books ngram, and it seems to me the right word when talking about
the involvement of different organisations, or the subdivision of a
system, such as education.
At school we used to have an annual Triangular Athletics match, because
it involved two other schools. I haven't thought about it before, but
it seems to me not a bad choice of term. Even "trilateral" would be a
bit heavy, and maybe confusing. "Tripartite" would be definitely OTT.
--
Iain Archer
John Dean
May 22, 2012, 6:23:51 PM5/22/12
to
<hhg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:773c635d-c75d-4d2f...@googlegroups.com...
Lawyerland may not be the same.
--
John Dean
Whiskers
May 22, 2012, 6:34:04 PM5/22/12
to
didn't want to confuse anyone?
Mark Brader
May 22, 2012, 6:38:27 PM5/22/12
to
R.H. Draney:
might disagree. I came across this clue just this morning in one of
their old crosswords that I was doing on the subway:
Figure in geometry is not exactly on target (8)
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | I am a mathematician, sir. I never permit myself
m...@vex.net | to think. --Stuart Mills (Carr: The Three Coffins)
> Which reminds me of one of my own pet questions: why do we speak of a
> "quadrilateral" instead of a "tetragon"?
You might do so, but Cox and Rathvon, the cryptic-crossword writers,
> "quadrilateral" instead of a "tetragon"?
might disagree. I came across this clue just this morning in one of
their old crosswords that I was doing on the subway:
Figure in geometry is not exactly on target (8)
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | I am a mathematician, sir. I never permit myself
m...@vex.net | to think. --Stuart Mills (Carr: The Three Coffins)
Stan Brown
May 22, 2012, 8:42:15 PM5/22/12
to
Against "trilateral" is the existence of the Trilateral Commission.
Against "tripartite" is that it sounds like an agreement for peace in
the Middle East.
--
"The difference between the /almost right/ word and the /right/ word
is ... the difference between the lightning-bug and the lightning."
--Mark Twain
Stan Brown, Tompkins County, NY, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com
Stan Brown
May 22, 2012, 8:43:05 PM5/22/12
to
are to some extent a matter of chance.
Steve Hayes
May 23, 2012, 12:29:12 AM5/23/12
to
On Tue, 22 May 2012 11:39:57 -0700 (PDT), "hhg...@gmail.com"
<hhg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Hi native speakers.
>
>I need a quick answer to an easy question for you:
>
>are tripartite and trilateral absolutely synonymous?
No.
>Hi native speakers.
>
>I need a quick answer to an easy question for you:
>
>are tripartite and trilateral absolutely synonymous?
>My particular problem is a business contract.
>I'd prefer to call it a trilateral agreement but another translator titled it as "tripartite agreement". Are both equally good?
A tripartite agreement has three parts, Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3. ,
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
James Hogg
May 23, 2012, 3:00:03 AM5/23/12
to
Steve Hayes wrote:
> On Tue, 22 May 2012 11:39:57 -0700 (PDT), "hhg...@gmail.com"
> <hhg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi native speakers.
>>
>> I need a quick answer to an easy question for you:
>>
>> are tripartite and trilateral absolutely synonymous?
>
> No.
>
>> My particular problem is a business contract.
>> I'd prefer to call it a trilateral agreement but another translator titled it as "tripartite agreement". Are both equally good?
>
> A trilateral agreement has three parties to one agreement.
>
> A tripartite agreement has three parts, Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3. ,
I agree, but we're both wrong. "Tripartite" can also mean "having three
> On Tue, 22 May 2012 11:39:57 -0700 (PDT), "hhg...@gmail.com"
> <hhg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi native speakers.
>>
>> I need a quick answer to an easy question for you:
>>
>> are tripartite and trilateral absolutely synonymous?
>
> No.
>
>> My particular problem is a business contract.
>> I'd prefer to call it a trilateral agreement but another translator titled it as "tripartite agreement". Are both equally good?
>
> A trilateral agreement has three parties to one agreement.
>
> A tripartite agreement has three parts, Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3. ,
parties" and has often been used about agreements and treaties.
--
James
Athel Cornish-Bowden
May 23, 2012, 4:17:24 AM5/23/12
to
On 2012-05-23 00:42:15 +0000, Stan Brown said:
> On Tue, 22 May 2012 11:39:57 -0700 (PDT), hhg...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Hi native speakers.
>>
>> I need a quick answer to an easy question for you:
>>
>> are tripartite and trilateral absolutely synonymous?
>>
>> My particular problem is a business contract.
>> I'd prefer to call it a trilateral agreement but another translator
>> titled it as "tripartite agreement". Are both equally good?
>
> Call it a three-way agreement. Why use Latin where English will do?
Why indeed, especially when the English is simpler and readily
> On Tue, 22 May 2012 11:39:57 -0700 (PDT), hhg...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Hi native speakers.
>>
>> I need a quick answer to an easy question for you:
>>
>> are tripartite and trilateral absolutely synonymous?
>>
>> My particular problem is a business contract.
>> I'd prefer to call it a trilateral agreement but another translator
>> titled it as "tripartite agreement". Are both equally good?
>
> Call it a three-way agreement. Why use Latin where English will do?
understood without any knowledge of Latin?
>
> Against "trilateral" is the existence of the Trilateral Commission.
> Against "tripartite" is that it sounds like an agreement for peace in
> the Middle East.
--
Tom P
May 23, 2012, 4:41:06 AM5/23/12
to
agreement is one which bestows the same rights and obligations on all
three parties, and implies a degree of equality of the parties in the
matter at hand. A tripartite agreement does not necessarily do so.
You can see this if you consider a specific example, the
Britain–India–Nepal Tripartite Agreement.
The agreement concerned the status of Gurkhas following the
independence of India. The actual content of the agreement in detail is
not relevant here, the point is that only a Nepalese citizen can become
a Gurkha - it is not as if it regulated the rights of British or Indian
citizens to become Gurkhas. Therefore it is not a trilateral agreement,
but a tripartite agreement.
Does the notorious Tripartite Pact of 1940 between Germany, Italy and
Japan fall in the same category? Good question. Well, none of the
parties considered themselves as equals of each other, let alone anyone
else. Rather Japan agreed to recognize Germany and Italy together as the
leaders of the New Order in Europe, and vice versa - if anything, a
bilateral agreement between Germany-Italy and Japan.
Steve Hayes
May 25, 2012, 4:18:53 AM5/25/12
to
But they are three parts, or parties, in one government.
When it comes to governing they act together, even over things not specified
in an agreement, though they can and sometimkes do disagree on certain issues.
I see a trilateral agreement as something much looser, where the agreement
itself is what links them.
0 new messages